[OH] Swapping fuel cost of BP2 and T3
16 Jul 2014, 02:35 AM
#21
Posts: 1637
+1
The PTRS's are fine as they are. Whenever i'm up against Guard Infantry, I always have to be careful with my vehicles or the Guards will completely destroy them. Good range, good damage and fairly cheap; if anything, the PTRS should nerfed since it's ridiculously good for the price. Even in the hands of Conscripts, the PTRS's are extremely potent.
27 Jul 2014, 21:51 PM
#22
Posts: 8154 | Subs: 2
Bump.
Can we have T4 back please ?
Also, after some of the buffs to building cost of different tiers on SU tech, should OH tech should get a little mp reduce cost? Something in the order of 30-50mp on BP1/2/3
Can we have T4 back please ?
Also, after some of the buffs to building cost of different tiers on SU tech, should OH tech should get a little mp reduce cost? Something in the order of 30-50mp on BP1/2/3
My controls weren't working
And if they were, you were playing dishonorably,
And if you weren't, you were playing without skill,
And if you were, it's not fun to play that way,
And if it is, you only care about winning.
Bible of Scrublord, Psalt 3:16.
And if they were, you were playing dishonorably,
And if you weren't, you were playing without skill,
And if you were, it's not fun to play that way,
And if it is, you only care about winning.
Bible of Scrublord, Psalt 3:16.
27 Jul 2014, 21:58 PM
#23
Posts: 604
I'd like a change like that.
Only drawback would be if you somehow get it destroyed and have to pay for it twice. Which shouldn't happen anyways.
Other than that, do you still need T3 to be able to build Pak43 emplacements? Because it is a purely defensive unit that wouldn't cause problems, I think. Just bringing it up in case anyone would see a problem with that.
Only drawback would be if you somehow get it destroyed and have to pay for it twice. Which shouldn't happen anyways.
Other than that, do you still need T3 to be able to build Pak43 emplacements? Because it is a purely defensive unit that wouldn't cause problems, I think. Just bringing it up in case anyone would see a problem with that.
29 Jul 2014, 00:01 AM
#24
5 
Posts: 1157 | Subs: 2
Why has this not received more attention? Is there a downside?
29 Jul 2014, 00:52 AM
#25
Posts: 39
I don't think i've ever seen a thread suggesting a balance change recieve zero negative attention. Nobody is yelling here. Seriously though, i miss FHT's. They aren't even that good, why do they have to be so late game and expensive?
29 Jul 2014, 01:08 AM
#26
Posts: 1384
So, skipping t3 every game then?
The internal teching logic is that battle phase is expensive while the buildings are relatively cheap. This exist because Ostheer is not meant to skip tech and this greatly deters doing so. Their arsenal is designed in such a way that skipping tech either requires doctrinal intervention or heavy investment in a lower tech. (For example, you could skip t3 if you heavily invested into t2. You could also skip t1 if you have Ostruppen.)
Flame halftacks should just be back in t2. T2 is so greatly delayed from what it used to be, and honestly how bad are you at the game that you can't counter one halftrack with mines/at grenades/zis/satchel charge/guard rifles or bazookas/rifle grenade. Both Americans and Soviets can easily have out the necessary AT to counter a flame halftrack in t2. (Just the same as countering a flak halftrack or whatever)
The internal teching logic is that battle phase is expensive while the buildings are relatively cheap. This exist because Ostheer is not meant to skip tech and this greatly deters doing so. Their arsenal is designed in such a way that skipping tech either requires doctrinal intervention or heavy investment in a lower tech. (For example, you could skip t3 if you heavily invested into t2. You could also skip t1 if you have Ostruppen.)
Flame halftacks should just be back in t2. T2 is so greatly delayed from what it used to be, and honestly how bad are you at the game that you can't counter one halftrack with mines/at grenades/zis/satchel charge/guard rifles or bazookas/rifle grenade. Both Americans and Soviets can easily have out the necessary AT to counter a flame halftrack in t2. (Just the same as countering a flak halftrack or whatever)
29 Jul 2014, 18:16 PM
#27
Posts: 8154 | Subs: 2
So, skipping t3 every game then? 1
The internal teching logic is that battle phase is expensive while the buildings are relatively cheap. This exist because Ostheer is not meant to skip tech and this greatly deters doing so. Their arsenal is designed in such a way that skipping tech either requires doctrinal intervention or heavy investment in a lower tech. (For example, you could skip t3 if you heavily invested into t2. You could also skip t1 if you have Ostruppen.) 2
Flame halftacks should just be back in t2. T2 is so greatly delayed from what it used to be, and honestly how bad are you at the game that you can't counter one halftrack with mines/at grenades/zis/satchel charge/guard rifles or bazookas/rifle grenade. Both Americans and Soviets can easily have out the necessary AT to counter a flame halftrack in t2. (Just the same as countering a flak halftrack or whatever) 3
1- Nope. You can use T3 to put presure on a call in SU strat or early light vehicle play of US. You can´t chase with Brumbears and Panthers don´t have great AI "harassing" capabilities.
2- And is this balanced in comparison to the introduction of the new factions? Do you think that MP wise, the mp atrittion is balance between US and OH ? SU has already receive buff in their teching department, so why not revisit it with OH?
PD: you can´t skip T1 with Osstruppen cause you won´t have faust. AND please show me who the hell goes Osstruppen NOWADAYS. (I used them "frequently" with the Puma commander but for the lulz)
PD2: Hans(?)
3- I think we have already had way too much FHT rush Meta to make the same mistakes. As i suggest, just swap prices between BP2 and T3 to make it appear faster.
My controls weren't working
And if they were, you were playing dishonorably,
And if you weren't, you were playing without skill,
And if you were, it's not fun to play that way,
And if it is, you only care about winning.
Bible of Scrublord, Psalt 3:16.
And if they were, you were playing dishonorably,
And if you weren't, you were playing without skill,
And if you were, it's not fun to play that way,
And if it is, you only care about winning.
Bible of Scrublord, Psalt 3:16.
2 users are browsing this thread:
2 guests
Ladders Top 10
-
#Steam AliasWL%Streak
- 1.968562.633+23
- 2.555227.710+11
- 3.29446.865-1
- 4.275110.714+13
- 5.259143.644+3
- 6.250150.625+11
- 7.22491.711+11
- 8.250135.649+1
- 9.19265.747+5
- 10.672425.613+1
Data provided by
Relic Entertainment
Relic Entertainment
Replay highlight
VS
-
cblanco ★ -
보드카 중대
-
VonManteuffel -
Heartless Jäger
Einhoven Country
Honor it
7
Download
744
Board Info
709 users are online:
1 member and 708 guests
Katitof
Katitof
10 posts in the last 24h
26 posts in the last week
140 posts in the last month
26 posts in the last week
140 posts in the last month
Registered members: 45036
Welcome our newest member, guildhallwealth
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM
Welcome our newest member, guildhallwealth
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM