Fine-tuning SK/Japan

[zeeyoo]

Why can't we just go for authenticity?

Just nerf KMS AP to 19 (DM33), bring back to 1990 non proto and buff price.

Then buff the K1A1 and you have the superheavy.

And finally the best way to close the gap between the K1 and the KMS would be to add the variant with KSAP armor and upgraded ammo (17AP) in the 100+ pts range.

this one would be perfect for every side

[Bougnas]

Would require a new unit tho, but maybe it's simple as it doesn't require a new model and Dragons need rerolls/new units anyway.

[ToTheMetal]

We could even get some soviet weaponry for SK, they received quite some items as a Soviet debt payment from Russia in mid 90s. In WG, the USSR is still there and the Cold War never ended, but still. Out of those I know that would at least be T-80U and Iglas (albeit I'm not sure how much the SK would need it, probably not at all). Could still be a fun little factor, given that NK gets T-90.

[Razzmann]

but still.

No, they got the T-80U as a direct result of the Cold War ending. There is no ingame justification for SK to get T-80Us. It is probably even more fantasy than NK getting the T-90.

[Doinize]

We could even get some soviet weaponry for SK, they received quite some items as a Soviet debt payment from Russia in mid 90s. In WG, the USSR is still there and the Cold War never ended, but still. Out of those I know that would at least be T-80U and Iglas (albeit I'm not sure how much the SK would need it, probably not at all). Could still be a fun little factor, given that NK gets T-90.

South Korean T80Us, BMP3s and Iglas would be mayor funtimes.
Sadly they were denied the moment SK was announced. Iirc the soviet equipment was given as War reperations, or to settle some other form of debt, something that would never happen in the Games timeline...
K2 is more likely than soviet equipment...

Edit: reading carefully is overrated :^)

[Sgt._Pepper]

Why can't we just go for authenticity?

If we go for authenticity then the K1A1 has to be removed because it's super OOTF and many coalitions will have their superheavies nerfed.

[zeeyoo]

Why can't we just go for authenticity?

If we go for authenticity then the K1A1 has to be removed because it's super OOTF and many coalitions will have their superheavies nerfed.

K1A1's Prototype was exhibited at 1996 Seoul Airshow. In this game, theres already some 1995-1996 prototypes.

and NK's T-90S in game set as serviced in 1999 prototype. then serviced in 1996 is the OOTF one? :/

[Bougnas]

At least there's one unit that doesn't need a buff :

[keldon]

Ok people, this tank debate is fascinating, however there are few points you should consider.

1) Due to the the still unknow extent of the "back into meta" patch, i will refrain from going overboard with rerolls and such.
2) Primary concern is to provide buff suggstion to close some if not all of the coalitions capability gaps.
3) "Big" rerolls will be considered and put onto the list if it has to do with the capability gap.

Now before you scream bias or i don't have a clue how to play BD, i'm keeping the more interesting and authenticity based stuff in mind, if eugen spills the beans about the exact plan then we can add those to the list. Also, most of the capability gap stuff comes from my own BD games, which i tend to play when go for BluFor, add in Razz's thread and i think we should have gotten most of them right. I left out many suggestions for RD, not because i didn't want them, but for gameplay purposes the list on the first page is good enough, so i won't start with BD and go overboard.

Now onto tank topic: BD tank tab is far from garbage, while the K1A1 is kinda in an awkward place, the true high-end and mid-end are very strong with their distinct characteristics.

Technically the tank tab just need some small tweaks and no real reason to slash Kyu-Maru availability/take it's German ammo away nor to buff K1A1 to 160 pts status. Yes, it would be authentic to switch K1A1 and Kyu-maru around, however it doesn't improve the tank tab situation in general. I'm also under the impression that K1A1 prototyp from 1996 was just slightly uparmored from the original K1, so the +1 FAV increase would just be that. Is there any sources which say that in 1996 the armor of K1A1 is already upgraded to 600mm RHA?

[mshig11]

Why can't we just go for authenticity?

If we go for authenticity then the K1A1 has to be removed because it's super OOTF and many coalitions will have their superheavies nerfed.

K1A1's Prototype was exhibited at 1996 Seoul Airshow. In this game, theres already some 1995-1996 prototypes.

and NK's T-90S in game set as serviced in 1999 prototype. then serviced in 1996 is the OOTF one? :/

The issue with this is Eugen has been very inconsistent with things that were shown or entered service in the 1995-1996 area. It almost seems random which units in that border timeframe are put into the game, some are in with no fuss while others are profusely denied. Personally I would prefer for them to just go to the latest year of the latest unit for prototypes. This would put all the nations on similar footing year wise (excluding the absolutely ridiculous ones that Eugen injected into "history"). There are some problems that can come from this, however there are many weapons and units that are over/undermodeled so if they had to they could kinda force stuff into a more balanced state.