Abood

Hey, thanks for your perspective, that's what I was looking for. I guess I wrote that wall of text because I wanted to convey more precisely what I felt was off about the Abrams balance. Just calling it OP seemed unhelpful. I'm glad to see others probably get what I'm saying: it's not too overpowered, just needs to be toned down a bit or made more expensive so it's not so spammable. Again, part of the problem is that for me it defines the central strategy of the US, which is kind of strange. Like other allied factions, they have a wide variety of tools at their disposal but one particular strategy (Abrams + Aeroblaze) strikes me as the most effective while at the same time being the simplest to pull off. They're as good at steamrolling as the soviets while having the flexibility and utility of allies. In fact, if given the choice I'd rather go with the Abrams over any other soviet T3 as part of my soviet strategy. So thematically it also feels off; even if US is meant to be more "soviet-like" than its counterparts, they shouldn't out-soviet the soviets!

Regarding your comments on other units, I understand the differences between units and factions and actually find them really balanced. The Abrams seemed to be the outlier, being better against all ground targets while also being cheaper and faster. Edit: A nerf would also further encourage US players to explore more cost-effective options for specific roles, like air harassment vs armor, athena cannon vs buildings, riot troopers/seals vs infantry, etc...

I think speeder just forgot to rebalance the Abrams after rebalancing all the lasers or something anyway.

I felt that way too. I haven't played 3.3.3 but I saw the 3.3.4 changelog with Abrams change and I could tell it was done for thematic reasons, but I failed to see the nerf that would compensate. And surely enough, the tests proved it. I liked it better when Abrams used only its cannon vs units and buildings anyway. It was less noisy and allowed the main cannon shots to sound more powerful. I just assumed the lasers were low-intensity or something like the robot tank and only good vs infantry, given that they're smaller and rapid-fire.

Note: I just realized this first paragraph is just pointless gushing not sure it belongs here so feel free to skip the first paragraph if you want.

Hello, good people. I was about to register a new account here only to discover that I've actually done so 4 years ago and completely and utterly forgotten about it. Anyway, point is I just returned to the game and honestly all the improvements since 3.0 have blown me away. The game overall seems to have become quite finely balanced, I assume thanks to endless community feedback and the developers' willingness to consider said feedback, which is just awesome; major respect and thanks to everyone involved. I'm halfway through the Act 1 campaign and it's honestly top quality, including the storyline that is more complex, has a more serious, sinister tone, and feels truly epic and wider in scope than the vanilla story which was pretty boring (and where only the allied campaign was canon). And most importantly the save/load function, the absence of which was the reason I stopped playing 4 years ago and the main reason I came back, so special thanks to AlexB! Okay, enough gushing, I'll get to my point

---------------------------------------------------------

So, my specific feedback is about the US Abrams tank. In short, it feels too strong and versatile for its low cost (at least as of the 3.3.4 buff). From my tests and experience, it cost-effectively dominates most ground forces including other T3 "monster tanks", while still being cheaper, faster, and having more range and/or versatility against other targets. I tested one-on-one:

Wins against Tesla Cruiser (+costs 100 less, +has more range +much better vs buildings -no emp -slightly worse vs infantry),

Tie against empty Catastrophe (+costs 200 less +has more range +faster +effective vs infantry without shelling out 950$ +rarely misses its shots, unlike catastrophe which occasionally does -no anti-air -slightly less versatile)

Tie against Colossus (+costs 200 less +range +speed +anti-infantry +much better vs buildings -no anti-air)

It holds up suprisingly well vs Nuwas and GGI - Battle Torts, dishing out significant damage before going down (+more range than BTs +can fire on the move unlike nuwas +much faster than both units). It's probably an even matchup in cost-equal numbers, depends on micro (such as avoiding Nuwa AOE).

Obviously Charon wins any 1 on 1 and Mastermind uses MC. Tyrant isn't meant for brute force anyway. I haven't played foehn yet (I want to discover them in the campaign).

Bonus: I fortunately found a video elegantly demonstrating some of these matchups (and vs foehn ones, presumably):

(if "Toveena Frezat" is on this board they have my thanks)

---------------------------------------------------------

So all in all Abrams feels too stronk for its cost. They dominate all kinds of ground units (even T3 tanks) while also being fast and good vs buildings. And US has the best ground-based AA to cover them. It really makes the US feel like its specialty isn't "precision strikes and laser weaponry" so much as "spamming Abrams". Hell even when I play soviets I use a more diverse army. Stormchildren harassment is still good, as is Tanya IFV, but it seems like making as many Abrams as you can is both easier and more effective than the alternatives. Why make warhawks or high-tier infantry (ok, infantry has a different queue) when that money could go into more abrams? I also often forgo athena cannons because abrams are so good against buildings and their decent speed and range makes them good at taking out defenses too, that I'd rather have extra abrams than artillery. I first noticed these things when one match I had an easier time clearing out two AI bases with 9 abrams than with 9 Catastrophes + desolator garrison (which costs about 60-70% more). I assume in actual pvp matches there are counters to this kind of strategy, but I was just comparing similar T3 units, and Abrams steamroll seemed to be the best steamroll.

I propose either keeping their awesomeness but increasing their price to 1600-1700 to prevent too much spam, or cutting their stats a bit. Their speed or range could be decreased but I like the speed and range as a unique advantage compared to other T3 tanks, so I suggest maybe increase the ROF for the main cannon instead? Or revert them to their old attack behavior (no lasers vs tanks and buildings).

Disclaimer: I fully admit I have no experience in pvp so I may be entirely wrong. But I do like watching matches when I can find them and I understand the basics of competitive play somewhat. Actually I'm curious how these things actually play out, if anyone has any experiences to share I'd love to hear them.

Cheers.