I truely love this game I love the whole wargame series and I always wanted to see it WW2 but didn't know how it could pan out. I know there are issues with the balance. But then again sometimes it's personal wants or desires for the game. I know my balance desires but what is everyone else LEGITIMATE issues and not just people crying. Just want to see what others think and see why the population for the game is so low.
What is everyone's issue with the game?
- Thread starter Battletoad
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Going off what some of the really old EE vets have? Probably a sense of entitlement. EUGEN did, once upon a time, went and released balance patches rapidly to try to fix issues. Sadly, this caused a lot of problems, like new balance issues or glitches. Now you have people calling for a "balance patch a week" to try to fix things in hopes that the player base doesn't drop more.
Once a week, however, is grossly unrealistic. Once a month would be great, that way there's enough time for the meta to settle a bit and for people to really figure things out. Rapid balance changes should only come out in the odd "oops" made in balance patches (like WG:RD's extremely HILARIOUS mistake with HE 40 Mot Schutzen, it was worth a laugh while it lasted), where as real balance changes on a monthly basis.
Wargame's community had its share of Doom Prophecy and EUGEN hate as well. As someone who has played since EE first came out, I've seen a good bit of it. I'm sure MadMat can tell you about the times he's awarded the "Doom Prophet" award as well.
Once a week, however, is grossly unrealistic. Once a month would be great, that way there's enough time for the meta to settle a bit and for people to really figure things out. Rapid balance changes should only come out in the odd "oops" made in balance patches (like WG:RD's extremely HILARIOUS mistake with HE 40 Mot Schutzen, it was worth a laugh while it lasted), where as real balance changes on a monthly basis.
Wargame's community had its share of Doom Prophecy and EUGEN hate as well. As someone who has played since EE first came out, I've seen a good bit of it. I'm sure MadMat can tell you about the times he's awarded the "Doom Prophet" award as well.
I know a balance patch a week is unreasonable. The game isn't broken. Games do have issues but it's nothing that can't be fixed. I think the community can be toxic and want the game to be their way and not care about really the big picture so they end up leaving.
The ranked system doesn't work. There's two major issues:
1) It still matches in completely stupid ways. I've played over 200 ranked games. I've been near the top of the rankings for a long time. Earlier today I played against somebody who was playing his first ever game of SD. I don't care how long people have been searching for, that should never happen. There needs to be a more intelligent matchmaker. If I had my way I'd never play anybody with more than 300 Elo difference. I'd happily queue for half an hour if that was guarenteed, as at least when queuing I can do other things. When smashing some poor soul into the dirt I have to pay attention. It's a waste of my time, it's a waste of my opponent's time.
2) Stablity: Desyncs crashes and disconnects. I played 8 ranked games today. The first 7 I won without any challenge a gaining ~10 points (because of issue 1 - these weren't close or exciting games and most were against ~1500 players). The 8th game I crashed during deployment, losing 15 points. Previous to that 3 of my last ~30 games were hit by the desync bug, losing me ~12 points each time. Even if I win every single game, my score stays level or goes down. Stabilty was great all through the beta and for a while after release, but it really has taken a nosedive.
The gameplay and game balance is mostly fine. AT planes could use a look at, but I like playing ranked and if the ranked system doesn't work, I'm not really very interested in playing.
1) It still matches in completely stupid ways. I've played over 200 ranked games. I've been near the top of the rankings for a long time. Earlier today I played against somebody who was playing his first ever game of SD. I don't care how long people have been searching for, that should never happen. There needs to be a more intelligent matchmaker. If I had my way I'd never play anybody with more than 300 Elo difference. I'd happily queue for half an hour if that was guarenteed, as at least when queuing I can do other things. When smashing some poor soul into the dirt I have to pay attention. It's a waste of my time, it's a waste of my opponent's time.
2) Stablity: Desyncs crashes and disconnects. I played 8 ranked games today. The first 7 I won without any challenge a gaining ~10 points (because of issue 1 - these weren't close or exciting games and most were against ~1500 players). The 8th game I crashed during deployment, losing 15 points. Previous to that 3 of my last ~30 games were hit by the desync bug, losing me ~12 points each time. Even if I win every single game, my score stays level or goes down. Stabilty was great all through the beta and for a while after release, but it really has taken a nosedive.
The gameplay and game balance is mostly fine. AT planes could use a look at, but I like playing ranked and if the ranked system doesn't work, I'm not really very interested in playing.
Last edited:
I'm just giving an educated guess stemming from what I've seen over Wargame's development. Overall people who are here on the forums tend to be a bit more, shall we say, passionate about their fun. I don't remember how fast player levels dropped off with the releases of new Wargame titles, but from seeing people complain about how its becoming harder and harder to find a game and that match maker is overall just not used? I can understand their worry.
I think one thing that they are forgetting is that SD is pretty much a whole new series, and thus hasn't established itself yet. Despite that, a lot of Wargame vets, I think, are holding it to the standards of an established series maybe?
I think one thing that they are forgetting is that SD is pretty much a whole new series, and thus hasn't established itself yet. Despite that, a lot of Wargame vets, I think, are holding it to the standards of an established series maybe?
The biggest problem?
Inconsistency and missing transparency in nearly all aspects.
A problem that also riddled the Wargame series... but which was partly fine due to a more arcadey approach since ALB.
Inconsistency and missing transparency in nearly all aspects.
A problem that also riddled the Wargame series... but which was partly fine due to a more arcadey approach since ALB.
I think it's understandable, there being no official statement on the future of Wargame. If it were clear that this is an offshoot and not the new direction for Eugen, a lot of the criticism would not have been voiced, and comparisons would be kinder.
Even if there are no plans, community managers should be capable of spinning that in some positive way. Anything is better than silence.
Last edited:
Thing is... if the community is 'toxic' and they leave, then it isn't toxic anymore. I don't think that's the problem. We're seeing an exodus of thousands of players and the forums are very much quiet so of the hundred or so consistent posters.... yeah, you see what I'm getting at? It seems people just don't like it and would rather just go play something else.
Look, I don't have a giant set of numbers to go off of, I come from a group of 10+ people that used to play Red Dragon regularly and before that, there was like 5 of us that played ALB regularly. About half of the 10+ were super excited for a WWII game from Eugen. I myself thought it was going to be a massive success for Eugen. I played the VIP beta and the Open and I was extremely excited for where the game was going. And then it sort of just fell flat.
And I'm going to piss people off because it hits on balance and some mechanics that may be popular but here's the god's honest truth from the people I used to play with and randoms I've talked to:
The game isn't fun.
It isn't fun to get stomped by King Tigers or Panthers and see your airplanes do jack shit when you think you're going to at least throw a track or something.
It isn't fun seeing your King Tiger or Panther surrender to a 5 man infantry team because it just got bombed.
It isn't fun getting hit with rocket artillery as soon as you enter a town.
It isn't fun getting hit with off-map, ever.
It isn't fun getting mauled by bomber trains and being able to shoot down maybe one bomber if you're lucky, usually zero if they're Mosquitoes.
It isn't fun running through the woods and meeting a dozen guys with a flamethrower who you can never seem to kill.
It isn't fun seeing all your stuff stunned and surrendered by some lame ass armored car and half-track spam.
it isn't fun lining up that perfect shot with your 2-star AT gun only to see it 'bounce' and then get murdered by planes and artillery.
It isn't fun getting instantly suppressed and surrendered by elite infantry that never seems to stop coming.
It isn't fun getting mortared by rapid fire mortars that never seem to miss and either instantly suppress or kill your troops.
I'm sure I could mention more things, but the feedback I've gotten from people just doesn't paint a very fun game. Do I know my way around a lot of these? Sure, how bout most of the people here? Yeah, I think most people posting here know how to play the game. We have no impact on what the rest of the players see and being elitist about it doesn't help.
We laugh at their balance complaints and tell them to 'git gud' but truthfully, if one noob just came in from a 10v10 Sword game and all he can do is talk about how he had no answer for the two or three King Tigers, well maybe we should consider giving him an answer that doesn't involve 400 points of tanks, 500 points of planes and 300 points of artillery. Maybe the elegant solution is just to make it so a person doesn't have to face three King Tigers.
Again, you and I know how to deal with the King Tigers and all the other stuff above, but most people coming into the game don't. Most people look at a game as 'You do X and I do Y to counter', but Steel Division is not that simple, it requires you to do more and even rely on your opponent to fall into some things. This is really difficult to transmit to new players or even teach via a tutorial.
It is my opinion that there is too much wrong with the game for noobs to ever grasp all the workarounds before they simply get disgruntled and leave. That's what we're seeing. The game simply isn't fun enough because the rewards aren't higher than the punishment you take to get them.
A game mode like 'Base Defense' or whatever would probably help the noobs a lot so they could set up and test out how to defeat attacks, but we don't have that. We have the same rush-based shit we've always had. Eugen even actively sought to mitigate the rushing by introducing the Phase system, now it's even more gimmicky than Red Dragon ever was.
Look, I don't have a giant set of numbers to go off of, I come from a group of 10+ people that used to play Red Dragon regularly and before that, there was like 5 of us that played ALB regularly. About half of the 10+ were super excited for a WWII game from Eugen. I myself thought it was going to be a massive success for Eugen. I played the VIP beta and the Open and I was extremely excited for where the game was going. And then it sort of just fell flat.
And I'm going to piss people off because it hits on balance and some mechanics that may be popular but here's the god's honest truth from the people I used to play with and randoms I've talked to:
The game isn't fun.
It isn't fun to get stomped by King Tigers or Panthers and see your airplanes do jack shit when you think you're going to at least throw a track or something.
It isn't fun seeing your King Tiger or Panther surrender to a 5 man infantry team because it just got bombed.
It isn't fun getting hit with rocket artillery as soon as you enter a town.
It isn't fun getting hit with off-map, ever.
It isn't fun getting mauled by bomber trains and being able to shoot down maybe one bomber if you're lucky, usually zero if they're Mosquitoes.
It isn't fun running through the woods and meeting a dozen guys with a flamethrower who you can never seem to kill.
It isn't fun seeing all your stuff stunned and surrendered by some lame ass armored car and half-track spam.
it isn't fun lining up that perfect shot with your 2-star AT gun only to see it 'bounce' and then get murdered by planes and artillery.
It isn't fun getting instantly suppressed and surrendered by elite infantry that never seems to stop coming.
It isn't fun getting mortared by rapid fire mortars that never seem to miss and either instantly suppress or kill your troops.
I'm sure I could mention more things, but the feedback I've gotten from people just doesn't paint a very fun game. Do I know my way around a lot of these? Sure, how bout most of the people here? Yeah, I think most people posting here know how to play the game. We have no impact on what the rest of the players see and being elitist about it doesn't help.
We laugh at their balance complaints and tell them to 'git gud' but truthfully, if one noob just came in from a 10v10 Sword game and all he can do is talk about how he had no answer for the two or three King Tigers, well maybe we should consider giving him an answer that doesn't involve 400 points of tanks, 500 points of planes and 300 points of artillery. Maybe the elegant solution is just to make it so a person doesn't have to face three King Tigers.
Again, you and I know how to deal with the King Tigers and all the other stuff above, but most people coming into the game don't. Most people look at a game as 'You do X and I do Y to counter', but Steel Division is not that simple, it requires you to do more and even rely on your opponent to fall into some things. This is really difficult to transmit to new players or even teach via a tutorial.
It is my opinion that there is too much wrong with the game for noobs to ever grasp all the workarounds before they simply get disgruntled and leave. That's what we're seeing. The game simply isn't fun enough because the rewards aren't higher than the punishment you take to get them.
A game mode like 'Base Defense' or whatever would probably help the noobs a lot so they could set up and test out how to defeat attacks, but we don't have that. We have the same rush-based shit we've always had. Eugen even actively sought to mitigate the rushing by introducing the Phase system, now it's even more gimmicky than Red Dragon ever was.
Last edited:
.png){kind=avatar}
Personally, I think Steel Division is a fantastic game. My only real issue is that the rolled out a really poorly-featured matchmaking system too late, which kneecapped its ability to obtain a critical mass of players.
I don't think the low population is the fault of the game, just a matter of the niche the game occupies and the marketing available to it.
I also think the game design and balance is pretty good, overall. There's some room for improvement, but Steel Division at launch is still better than, say, Red Dragon or ALB were after a year of post-launch polishing behind them. Yeah, the forums are full of people complaining about the balance, but that's true of pretty much any competitive game ever; it's the nature of the gaming community.
I don't think the low population is the fault of the game, just a matter of the niche the game occupies and the marketing available to it.
I also think the game design and balance is pretty good, overall. There's some room for improvement, but Steel Division at launch is still better than, say, Red Dragon or ALB were after a year of post-launch polishing behind them. Yeah, the forums are full of people complaining about the balance, but that's true of pretty much any competitive game ever; it's the nature of the gaming community.
I think the transparency issues come from how they do not like the reactions they get from stuff leaking or being released early. Once upon a time EUGEN used to push updates on balance changes for Wargame before the patch came out. Personally? I loved that they did that, but the Doom Prophets would come out and moan and groan over it and cause a big ole mess of toxicity over it.
As such, EUGEN has slowly drawn back from being open and transparent about updates.
as you'd expect from a boardgame ported to PC, a platform that loses the whole reason that they're fun. Some praise Steel Division for abandoning past game-y mechanics, but forget that it's a computer game still.
Last edited:
That's not necessarily what I mean with transparency, but I'm speaking about how game-mechanics work... imagine you are now entering the game... would you know how veterancy works and with which exceptions?
Do you know what Eugen is actually currently working on? What Eugen is thinking about the current Meta?
I'm not talking about releasing Patch-Notes and stuff... but more transparency in their thought process, their mindset and their opinions.
More transperancy regarding the deeper game-mechanics.
More transperancy why certain units are balanced the way they are.
Simple answers to why they do certain things.
Ah I see what you mean, my mistake. Wargame has a lot of those issues as well, I know I've complained about them. One example is how I've called for reworking the armory to reflect things a lot better, such as RoF and what not. Figuring out DPS for automatic weapons in WG requires literally digging into game files because the armory doesn't show how it really is. You can't even tell at a glance what tanks have auto loaders and which do not.
Improving game play and mechanic transparency would be wonderful.
I love this game and it ticks all the boxes for me, as I am just a casual player, have little interest in balance wars and care little if panther is acc 3 or 7...
There are some things that bother me, player retention being the biggest of them, as I am forced to play in CET morning hours and struggle to find decent match with only like 300 people active at that time.
Don't really understand why people keep saying in few threads that SD failed in comparison to Wargame, bringing up numbers on release etc. Devs said that they are starting anew franchise and it's going to be different than Wargame. This is different game. I mean if someone prefers to play RD than SD, why make so much fuss about it? It's a win win situation for Eugen, they had 1000 people playing RD daily and now they have extra 900 playing SD (hopefully number won't drop further). If someone prefers RD over SD, there is no enforcement to switch over. I don't get why RD people come to the "other game" forum and doom talk? Guess for some sick satisfaction.
There are some things that bother me, player retention being the biggest of them, as I am forced to play in CET morning hours and struggle to find decent match with only like 300 people active at that time.
Don't really understand why people keep saying in few threads that SD failed in comparison to Wargame, bringing up numbers on release etc. Devs said that they are starting anew franchise and it's going to be different than Wargame. This is different game. I mean if someone prefers to play RD than SD, why make so much fuss about it? It's a win win situation for Eugen, they had 1000 people playing RD daily and now they have extra 900 playing SD (hopefully number won't drop further). If someone prefers RD over SD, there is no enforcement to switch over. I don't get why RD people come to the "other game" forum and doom talk? Guess for some sick satisfaction.
The air and anti-air game in general feels out of place and wonky, not only is it out of place in gameplay but also in setting, it's Wargame air gameplay shoe-horned into a WW2 game. In Wargame it worked quite well with modern jet fighters and anti-air units firing powerful and precise guided modern weapons, it fit the setting and the gameplay was good with microing radar, but trying to fit those mechanics into Steel Division based on WW2 hardware I don't think has worked well, I'd be curious to play Steel Division without air.
I think the game could have been better if air ground attack functioned like off-map artillery (even replace off-map artillery), and that planes flew in squadrons as one group and were not controllable, though maybe have fighter squadrons controllable or atleast roughly directable, though that could be not very pretty with the engine.
Having a squadron of ground attack planes called in (or several squadrons, particularly tank busters several squadrons - call in 30 typhoons then it will make sense for them to be able to kill afew armoured units - such very powerful air call-ins would be very late and limited phase c end game ability) by placing a very large target area on map, and fighter squadrons that could be called in as a response, maybe controlled, maybe not, and ground attack aircraft would prioritise dogfighting, though they could perhaps automatically flee when enemy fighters attack if there is no allied fighter squadrons nearby.
Alot of different design options such as whether any planes that were shot down would matter - if you buy squadrons of plane units and lose them, if squadrons get planes lost over the battelfield automatically replaced etc, or if it works like a off-map artillery unit or if plane call-ins are selectable abilities for the decks and how customisable those are or if they are tied to what division it is, maybe some divisions could be balanced to not have air, how long and how powerful the ground attacks would be etc. Ground attacks called in of course would be alot less powerful than off-map artillery and over a much larger area and last a longer time, which I think would make it ideal to entirely replace off-map artillery as I think main problem with off-map artillery is that it acts like a sudden nuke option rather than an area-denial that forces enemies to move out of the area or to soften them up and stun them rather than kill them, but off-map artillery is currently quite realistic I believe, and calling in squadrons of ground-attack planes to spend a minute or so strafing units in the area, maybe even make enemy units auotmatically fall back in terror, would work well as what off-map artillery should be in terms of gameplay.
Not only such better gameplay possibilities but it would fit so much better into the setting and be believable etc.
I guess it's too late for this game, but air could be radically changed if they make another Steel Division.
I think the game could have been better if air ground attack functioned like off-map artillery (even replace off-map artillery), and that planes flew in squadrons as one group and were not controllable, though maybe have fighter squadrons controllable or atleast roughly directable, though that could be not very pretty with the engine.
Having a squadron of ground attack planes called in (or several squadrons, particularly tank busters several squadrons - call in 30 typhoons then it will make sense for them to be able to kill afew armoured units - such very powerful air call-ins would be very late and limited phase c end game ability) by placing a very large target area on map, and fighter squadrons that could be called in as a response, maybe controlled, maybe not, and ground attack aircraft would prioritise dogfighting, though they could perhaps automatically flee when enemy fighters attack if there is no allied fighter squadrons nearby.
Alot of different design options such as whether any planes that were shot down would matter - if you buy squadrons of plane units and lose them, if squadrons get planes lost over the battelfield automatically replaced etc, or if it works like a off-map artillery unit or if plane call-ins are selectable abilities for the decks and how customisable those are or if they are tied to what division it is, maybe some divisions could be balanced to not have air, how long and how powerful the ground attacks would be etc. Ground attacks called in of course would be alot less powerful than off-map artillery and over a much larger area and last a longer time, which I think would make it ideal to entirely replace off-map artillery as I think main problem with off-map artillery is that it acts like a sudden nuke option rather than an area-denial that forces enemies to move out of the area or to soften them up and stun them rather than kill them, but off-map artillery is currently quite realistic I believe, and calling in squadrons of ground-attack planes to spend a minute or so strafing units in the area, maybe even make enemy units auotmatically fall back in terror, would work well as what off-map artillery should be in terms of gameplay.
Not only such better gameplay possibilities but it would fit so much better into the setting and be believable etc.
I guess it's too late for this game, but air could be radically changed if they make another Steel Division.
Last edited:
For me the biggest hates were cheese (autocannons, AT planes, bomber spam) and the excessive amount of elite infantry.
I sincerely believe that balance was much better before the airborne divisions were added and I hope they get kneecapped so hard we basically never see them again as in WRD.
That said, balance isn't what kills a game. CoH2 starting balance was garbage and remained that way for over a year, but it still pulled off huge sales numbers and maintained an excellent player count because it had CoH1's killer campaign bringing curious people in, and some percentage of those folks stuck around through the execrable CoH2 campaign and jumped into MP.
tldr Eugen seriously invest in SP if you want them numbers.
I sincerely believe that balance was much better before the airborne divisions were added and I hope they get kneecapped so hard we basically never see them again as in WRD.
That said, balance isn't what kills a game. CoH2 starting balance was garbage and remained that way for over a year, but it still pulled off huge sales numbers and maintained an excellent player count because it had CoH1's killer campaign bringing curious people in, and some percentage of those folks stuck around through the execrable CoH2 campaign and jumped into MP.
tldr Eugen seriously invest in SP if you want them numbers.
I think many new players turn away from the game when they play as the Allies and have to fight heavy German tanks. That requires micromanagement that's above a new player's skill level, and that's why players tend to stack on the German team.
It's an inherent problem for a tactical WW2 game (set on the Western front in '44) that strives to be somewhat historically correct, because in terms of armor protection and tank guns, the Germans had superior tanks. But I think the devs could at least tone down the availability of German heavy tanks -- especially those with veterancy. The combination of superior armor protection and accuracy (due to vet) ensures that the German heavy tanks will win almost every tank vs tank fight, even vs the more potent Allied tanks.
I would propose giving 4-6 heavy tanks at most 1-2 stars for the Panzer divisions, and ideally only have one per card for the veterans. Also, allowing the 21st and Lehr to field 3-4 King Tigers ruins the game for the Allied players in 10v10s, and they don't even need that many in smaller games, so the KT availability has to be toned down to 2 at most (ideally just 1).
It's an inherent problem for a tactical WW2 game (set on the Western front in '44) that strives to be somewhat historically correct, because in terms of armor protection and tank guns, the Germans had superior tanks. But I think the devs could at least tone down the availability of German heavy tanks -- especially those with veterancy. The combination of superior armor protection and accuracy (due to vet) ensures that the German heavy tanks will win almost every tank vs tank fight, even vs the more potent Allied tanks.
I would propose giving 4-6 heavy tanks at most 1-2 stars for the Panzer divisions, and ideally only have one per card for the veterans. Also, allowing the 21st and Lehr to field 3-4 King Tigers ruins the game for the Allied players in 10v10s, and they don't even need that many in smaller games, so the KT availability has to be toned down to 2 at most (ideally just 1).
Last edited:
^ Yes. Armour availability is whack. Too many King Tigers available and players not incentivised enough to use medium tanks, especially the Allies.
Suggestion:
Lehr: No King Tigers
21st: 1 King Tiger Phase C. Maybe Phase B.
Soft option:
Lehr: 1 King Tiger.
21st: 2 King Tigers, Preferably both in Phase C.
How many King Tigers fought in Normandy? and every few games we see King Tigers, (even worse in 10v10, though I'm not sure how it is now as I haven't played 10v10 in weeks) and when you play a game with King Tigers in it there are often multiple King Tigers.
How many Panthers fought in Normandy? I feel like I don't even see twice as many Panthers as King Tigers, and I don't see many more Shermans than that.
and I'm not saying that King Tigers are OP.
I've never experienced a significant problem with King Tigers, I don't think I've had one profit against me. Never experienced King Tigers being a factor that made me lose a game. I'm not saying King Tigers are OP, just that should seriously consider the game without them as I think they ruin setting and prevent potentially funner gameplay.
The game needs alot more Panthers and Shermans.
- Increase medium tank range
- Reduce medium tank price and increase availability
- Remove KT from Lehr, or restrict them to only one KT - no, just remove KT from Lehr and give Lehr more veteran Panthers and Tigers and make it abit more versatile deck with some more inf etc.
- Make Tiger I more appealing, slight buff or price decrease, maybe increase availbility slightly
- and atleast remove veterancy from King Tigers so that it functions more like a shield, also maybe increase KT armour and reduce KT price.
and, again, I'm not saying anything about King Tigers being in anyway OP. If anything the King Tigers needs to be buffed outside veterancy, isn't King Tiger side armour abit low?
I'm saying I think it is worth considering restricting KT to 21st, remove veterancy, maybe significantly reduce price, increase armour, probably best to remove it from B, and have only 2 available, preferably only 1 available.
Regardless of above, at very least I think Phase B King Tiger should be removed from Lehr and given to 21st and 21st speciality, but, as said, really I think having King Tiger at all should be exclusive to 21st.
Suggestion:
Lehr: No King Tigers
21st: 1 King Tiger Phase C. Maybe Phase B.
Soft option:
Lehr: 1 King Tiger.
21st: 2 King Tigers, Preferably both in Phase C.
How many King Tigers fought in Normandy? and every few games we see King Tigers, (even worse in 10v10, though I'm not sure how it is now as I haven't played 10v10 in weeks) and when you play a game with King Tigers in it there are often multiple King Tigers.
How many Panthers fought in Normandy? I feel like I don't even see twice as many Panthers as King Tigers, and I don't see many more Shermans than that.
and I'm not saying that King Tigers are OP.
I've never experienced a significant problem with King Tigers, I don't think I've had one profit against me. Never experienced King Tigers being a factor that made me lose a game. I'm not saying King Tigers are OP, just that should seriously consider the game without them as I think they ruin setting and prevent potentially funner gameplay.
The game needs alot more Panthers and Shermans.
- Increase medium tank range
- Reduce medium tank price and increase availability
- Remove KT from Lehr, or restrict them to only one KT - no, just remove KT from Lehr and give Lehr more veteran Panthers and Tigers and make it abit more versatile deck with some more inf etc.
- Make Tiger I more appealing, slight buff or price decrease, maybe increase availbility slightly
- and atleast remove veterancy from King Tigers so that it functions more like a shield, also maybe increase KT armour and reduce KT price.
and, again, I'm not saying anything about King Tigers being in anyway OP. If anything the King Tigers needs to be buffed outside veterancy, isn't King Tiger side armour abit low?
I'm saying I think it is worth considering restricting KT to 21st, remove veterancy, maybe significantly reduce price, increase armour, probably best to remove it from B, and have only 2 available, preferably only 1 available.
Regardless of above, at very least I think Phase B King Tiger should be removed from Lehr and given to 21st and 21st speciality, but, as said, really I think having King Tiger at all should be exclusive to 21st.
MY problem is that I cannot play a full 40 minutes game 
5-15 minutes before the game ends I usually get lags with my units (delayed orders, units reacting several seconds late) and then get dropped for my PC beeing too slow.
Except my PC isnt too slow and was fine with the game before release. That is a big downside for me and kills more fun than any balance issue could.
The game needs ALOT of fixing, but its generally quite good and a fresh and new approach after Wargame Series.
Downside is the limited Theatre of Operations, especially normandy feels dead and buried in too many titles already. I am also looking forward to some mature tank battles on the eastern front in the future.
5-15 minutes before the game ends I usually get lags with my units (delayed orders, units reacting several seconds late) and then get dropped for my PC beeing too slow.
Except my PC isnt too slow and was fine with the game before release. That is a big downside for me and kills more fun than any balance issue could.
The game needs ALOT of fixing, but its generally quite good and a fresh and new approach after Wargame Series.
Downside is the limited Theatre of Operations, especially normandy feels dead and buried in too many titles already. I am also looking forward to some mature tank battles on the eastern front in the future.