Login

russian armor

Gaurds Assualt Troops

13 May 2020, 08:02 AM
#1
avatar of VIGNASH

Posts: 187


Feel like this is the most underused and rarely seen unit in the game. The fact that it is locked behind a doctorine and further locked behind a HT combo package is just brutal tbh. Maybe get rid of the HT since the player can build one from tech?

Anyways, I dont think they are worth the cost since they really lack on abilities, sure they have a good firepower from recent patch, but i think it can't be put to good use without supporting abilities like smoke nade or camaflouge when in cover or Tactical assault similar to Stormtroopers and Paratroopers. I dont think a regular greande and trip flare is worth 510 MP (with HT which i dont see a point since it comes very late in the game when there are plenty of AT in the field).

I suggest make them a separate call in unit with ~340-80 MP with extra above mentioned abilities.
13 May 2020, 08:09 AM
#2
avatar of Katitof

Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8

Accept the fact there is a doctrine with 4 abilities only and move on, like everyone else.
13 May 2020, 08:12 AM
#3
avatar of Crecer13

Posts: 2184 | Subs: 2

You have already created the third such topic about the Assault Guard. And yes, this design is stupid. But there are defenders of such an absurd design. I myself played on the weekend with the Assault Guard, and Jeez, the only thing that’s good in this commander is the M4C. But M4C is not worth choosing a commander
13 May 2020, 08:17 AM
#4
avatar of VIGNASH

Posts: 187

You have already created the third such topic about the Assault Guard. And yes, this design is stupid. But there are defenders of such an absurd design. I myself played on the weekend with the Assault Guard, and Jeez, the only thing that’s good in this commander is the M4C. But M4C is not worth choosing a commander


I didnt, since this is the frist from me.

Not just M4C, Dsk HMG is good too but overall not very worth it.
13 May 2020, 08:26 AM
#5
avatar of Crecer13

Posts: 2184 | Subs: 2

jump backJump back to quoted post13 May 2020, 08:17 AMVIGNASH


I didnt, since this is the frist from me.

Not just M4C, Dsk HMG is good too but overall not very worth it.


Well, I don’t really like DShK. DShK has too small a cone of fire, although it has a good suppression. I would prefer Maxim more for the defense of the position due to the fact that it is more difficult to flank. Although Maxim is not the best machine gun. So yes, in this commander, only M4C is useful to me.
13 May 2020, 08:33 AM
#6
avatar of Unit G17

Posts: 498

Yeah, I also made a thread about it, with about 50%-50% voting for keeping and removing the M5 half track from the call-in. Perhaps replacing the HT with something more interesting, like the USF M3 HT would be better, as that thing can drop medkits.
13 May 2020, 08:37 AM
#7
avatar of Katitof

Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8

Yeah, I also made a thread about it, with about 50%-50% voting for keeping and removing the M5 half track from the call-in. Perhaps replacing the HT with something more interesting, like the USF M3 HT would be better, as that thing can drop medkits.

Well, its lend lease doctrine, let's go wild and slap UKF spec weapons HT :snfPeter::snfPeter::snfPeter:
13 May 2020, 08:44 AM
#8
avatar of Unit G17

Posts: 498

jump backJump back to quoted post13 May 2020, 08:37 AMKatitof

Well, its lend lease doctrine, let's go wild and slap UKF spec weapons HT :snfPeter::snfPeter::snfPeter:

Bruh, you don't want to see an SU doctrine that can equip its own penals with vickers. :)
13 May 2020, 08:45 AM
#9
avatar of Hannibal
Senior Moderator Badge

Posts: 3113 | Subs: 2


Bruh, you don't want to see an SU doctrine that can equip its own penals with vickers. :)


We will call them Oberpenals.
13 May 2020, 08:47 AM
#10
avatar of Katitof

Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8



We will call them Oberpenals.

We can shorten that to Openals.
13 May 2020, 08:47 AM
#11
avatar of Unit G17

Posts: 498



We will call them Oberpenals.


Or penaliser squad!
13 May 2020, 08:50 AM
#12
avatar of Crecer13

Posts: 2184 | Subs: 2

Instead of DShK I would prefer Bofors. Since the USSR cannot build defensive structures.
13 May 2020, 09:58 AM
#13
avatar of SupremeStefan

Posts: 1220

Instead of DShK I would prefer Bofors. Since the USSR cannot build defensive structures.
that would be cool
13 May 2020, 10:56 AM
#14
avatar of T.R. Stormjäger

Posts: 3588 | Subs: 3

Tactical assault should be removed, not added to more units. Remove that cancer from the game ktnxbye

Guards should be buildable at T4 as soon as the assault group unlocks.

Tbh I'd love to see the M4C take a dive and be replaced by a Valentine.


jump backJump back to quoted post13 May 2020, 08:47 AMKatitof

We can shorten that to Openals.


OPnals


Instead of DShK I would prefer Bofors.


Hardest NO on the planet.
13 May 2020, 11:03 AM
#15
avatar of Crecer13

Posts: 2184 | Subs: 2


Hardest NO on the planet.


Then please give the Soviets the opportunity to build a machine gun nest without commanders. This is ridiculous, the Soviets are the only faction without the ability to build defensive structures.
13 May 2020, 11:06 AM
#16
avatar of T.R. Stormjäger

Posts: 3588 | Subs: 3



Then please give the Soviets the opportunity to build a machine gun nest without commanders. This is ridiculous, the Soviets are the only faction without the ability to build defensive structures.



Ask the balance team to put MG nests in the community defense doctrine. Cucking the lend lease doctrine with a useless bofors replacing the OP chad af Dshka is not acceptable.
13 May 2020, 11:08 AM
#17
avatar of SupremeStefan

Posts: 1220



Hardest NO on the planet.
im sure even with bofors that doctrine will be still mediocre but definitely more fun
13 May 2020, 11:11 AM
#18
avatar of T.R. Stormjäger

Posts: 3588 | Subs: 3

im sure even with bofors that doctrine will be still mediocre but definitely more fun


Bofors would cuck lend lease for good.

The doctrine has 3 good ingredients: Dshka, Guards, M4C

Currently Dshka is amazing, Guards are limited and expensive, M4C is garbage

You fix the doctrine by fixing Guards and deleting the M4C from the game, not destroying the Dshka for the nerfed useless Bofors.

edit: deleting M4C is hyperbole, but you get the point.
13 May 2020, 11:13 AM
#19
avatar of Crecer13

Posts: 2184 | Subs: 2




Ask the balance team to put MG nests in the community defense doctrine. Cucking the lend lease doctrine with a useless bofors replacing the OP chad af Dshka is not acceptable.


No, not OP. the Soviets have lower repair speed; there are no British buildings that are synergistic with Bofors.

A simple machine-gun bunker in the commander is nonsense. The commanders should have advanced units, such as: concrete bunker, AA guns, etc. Each faction should be able to build machine-gun nests, barbed wire and anti-tank traps without a commander - because these are the basic structures.
13 May 2020, 11:36 AM
#20
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1



Bofors would cuck lend lease for good.

The doctrine has 3 good ingredients: Dshka, Guards, M4C

Currently Dshka is amazing, Guards are limited and expensive, M4C is garbage

You fix the doctrine by fixing Guards and deleting the M4C from the game, not destroying the Dshka for the nerfed useless Bofors.

edit: deleting M4C is hyperbole, but you get the point.

M4C is superior to Ostheer call in PzJ.
1 user is browsing this thread: 1 guest

Ladders Top 10

  • #
    Steam Alias
    W
    L
    %
    Streak
Data provided by Relic Relic Entertainment

Replay highlight

VS
  • U.S. Forces flag cblanco ★
  • The British Forces flag 보드카 중대
  • Oberkommando West flag VonManteuffel
  • Ostheer flag Heartless Jäger
uploaded by XXxxHeartlessxxXX

Board Info

642 users are online: 642 guests
3 posts in the last 24h
4 posts in the last week
23 posts in the last month
Registered members: 48722
Welcome our newest member, asherllc
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM