USF and mobile rocket artillery

New topic

New Reply

Posts: 183

22 Sep 2014, 06:46 AMLeepriest

While OKW, Ostheer and Soviets have nondoctrinal rocket artillery the Americans have nothing of the like. The closest thing to support artillery is the majors artillery strike that costs quite some munitions(that cant be depended as a stable artillery support, since you dont have 120 munis available every 60-70 Seconds)and the scott must be really close to do any damage. Why cant the americans get some rocket artillery?

Assymetric Balance

Posts: 123

Asymmetric balance my ass.

Imagine an RTS where not every faction had a siege unit. Heavy artillery in this game IS the equivalent of a siege weapon. The Scott and pack howitzer are glorified mortars with relatively short range.

The only true heavy siege weapon the US gets is the priest, which is doctrinal only. This isn't sufficient.

Posts: 8154 | Subs: 2

Wait for the new commanders :MVGame:

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.

Multi Quote

Posts: 665

Yeah, one of US's biggest weakness is the lack of key units. No heavy tanks I can stomach, but your only reliable artillery being doctrinal is a bit much. Especially since the Priest is more expensive and still worse than the Katyusha and Stuka (haven't used Pwerfer in ages).

As a result, US can have a very, very hard time breaking through a determined defense. Thus making them even more map-dependant than they should be.

Posts: 97

I feel like the problem isn't that the US lacks key units, but that the things that make up for that are not preforming well enough for that to work.

I also wish the scott was doctrinal rather than the priest :/.

Posts: 818

25 Sep 2014, 02:55 AMThe_Courier

Yeah, one of US's biggest weakness is the lack of key units. No heavy tanks I can stomach, but your only reliable artillery being doctrinal is a bit much. Especially since the Priest is more expensive and still worse than the Katyusha and Stuka (haven't used Pwerfer in ages).

As a result, US can have a very, very hard time breaking through a determined defense. Thus making them even more map-dependant than they should be.

I agree being light and mobile Is OK but they need to be able to punish campy play more b/c sometimes you can't just flank and harass them.

Also the panzerwerfer is terrible i've bought like 30 of them this patch in 4v4s they kill about half as many units as the Katusha and never wipe squads(unless you use artillery officer with them then they are good). Thing needs a buff

Playercard of -NSO- Hon3ynuts

1v1: P	2v2: P	3v3: None	4v4: P
1v1: P	2v2: P	3v3: None	4v4: P
1v1: P	2v2: P	3v3: P	4v4: P
1v1: P	2v2: P	3v3: P	4v4: P

Multi Quote

Posts: 1026

Just like in CoH, the first two factions are asymmetrical but still have rough equivelancies in core units, but then the next two factions are silly and gimmicky in many ways, lacking many core units.

Posts: 665

25 Sep 2014, 03:34 AMThoseDeafMutes

Just like in CoH, the first two factions are asymmetrical but still have rough equivelancies in core units, but then the next two factions are silly and gimmicky in many ways, lacking many core units.

Well, the WFA armies are nowhere near as bad as the Brits, and I thought the PE was a nice faction once the balance problems got sorted out.

But it's true that the new factions tend to be more gimmicky. Pity, the factions that were added in DOW2's xpacs were the most interesting, well rounded in the game, I thought Relic would follow up on that.