Login

russian armor

osttruppen

30 Jan 2017, 09:16 AM
#21
avatar of ROMEAT

Posts: 69 | Subs: 1

I am more surprised why the hell I can't upgrade my ostruppen reserves with G43's from lightning war commander Kappa
30 Jan 2017, 09:32 AM
#22
avatar of tightrope
Senior Caster Badge
Patrion 39

Posts: 1194 | Subs: 29



I think he meant reserve infantry, you know where you pay 200 ammo for 2 or 3 squads at the most of Osttruppen who replace fallen models during that time.

I never use it because I think it's useless in larger team games but I think it could be used situationally in smaller 1v1 or 2v2 games where you're expecting one hell of a fight and huge losses.


Relief infantry is only 90 munitions and you can get 3 squads. It is actually very good, the only reason we don't see more of it is because lightning war also has stuka CAS that is even better.
30 Jan 2017, 10:11 AM
#24
avatar of Sjakie Terreur

Posts: 15

After playing with osttruppen I came to the conclusion - they need a little late game buff. Maybe buy three SVT-40 or a DP-27 (because it's RLA soldiers and fought with Soviet weapons) after T3 or T4 construction?


AK47's, lightsabers and they should be able to call in Appache support and tesla towers out of there asses and and and..... Come on dude
30 Jan 2017, 10:48 AM
#25
avatar of A. Soldier

Posts: 3094 | Subs: 2



Relief infantry is only 90 munitions and you can get 3 squads. It is actually very good, the only reason we don't see more of it is because lightning war also has stuka CAS that is even better.


Like I said, it's because I never use it so I don't even know it's cost or name lol.

But I thought it was 200 huh, was wondering how in the hell would a Wehr live long enough to that point in the game to even use that.
30 Jan 2017, 12:22 PM
#26
avatar of William Christensen

Posts: 401

I'm more keen on the idea of making them more like Cons late game (Harder to be hit) than giving them upgrades. Just give them better RA buff at vet 3, maybe along with some slight vet requirements so they won't get to vet 3 too fast and yeah, it should be solid (Consider the fact that they deal literally zero to no damage, only good enmass so...)‎

Right now, they are really good early to late-of-mid game, but when upgraded infantries arrived, they just dropped like flies. I'm NOT asking for them to be able to fight back ferociously, but rather slightly more resilient at vet 3.‎
30 Jan 2017, 13:16 PM
#27
avatar of Highfiveeeee

Posts: 1740

Osttruppen are not UP. You gain amazing capping powers at the start and don't need to tech T1. Both factors which allow you to get tanks out at an amazing fast speed (with the lack of Panzerfaust as a disadvantage).


30 Jan 2017, 15:15 PM
#28
avatar of Crecer13

Posts: 2000 | Subs: 2

I'm not sure I understood what you meant here - you don't need to spend ammo to recrew team weapons with Osttruppen.

What said A.Soldat

AK47's, lightsabers and they should be able to call in Appache support and tesla towers out of there asses and and and..... Come on dude


I do not understand sense of your irony - I made a constructive idea, instead a complete nonsense.Osttruppen - is Russian Liberation Army soldiers and they use Soviet weapons.

Right now, they are really good early to late-of-mid game, but when upgraded infantries arrived, they just dropped like flies. I'm NOT asking for them to be able to fight back ferociously, but rather slightly more resilient at vet 3.‎


That's what I'm talking. They are not bad as long as come Bren and BAR.
30 Jan 2017, 16:06 PM
#29
avatar of William Christensen

Posts: 401



That's what I'm talking. They are not bad as long as come Bren and BAR.



But then, that does not justify the idea of them getting upgrades. They aren't meant to be combat-effective! They are meant to quickly shore up a frontline for other troops to deal damage. ‎
30 Jan 2017, 16:18 PM
#30
avatar of Crecer13

Posts: 2000 | Subs: 2



But then, that does not justify the idea of them getting upgrades. They aren't meant to be combat-effective! They are meant to quickly shore up a frontline for other troops to deal damage. ‎


But they are very poorly get veterancy, with extra weapons they better against infantry and quickly get veterancy. Fresh osttruppen in late game will die earlier than get first veterancy.
30 Jan 2017, 16:40 PM
#31
avatar of ferwiner
Donator 11

Posts: 2885



Just because one guy with insane micro does a strat best doesn't mean that the unit is good, it just means he'd good at it, I for example have tried to play like him many times but I couldn't.

I'm sorry but not all of us are StarCraft high APM mad lmg l33t pros that do nothing else but stream competitive CoH all of the time.

On topic: Yes, I do agree that a slight buff could be added to the Osttruppen, like for example only being able to repair building at vet 1/2/3 for example? So they can build AND maintain their own defense, OR give them the ability to build sandbags like Pioneers.

They're basically cheap support infantry that's good at static defense, but they can't make any other defensive structures besides Trenches and Bunkers, and you won't always have the space to build those while you could fit a sandbag there for example.


It's the first time I see someone arguing for a change even though he explicitly states that this is going to make top level gameplay even more imbalanced and that it is his l2p issue. Btw, the ballance at lower levels than top of the top is given by the matchmaker rather than stats. If the ballance of top level wasn't important for the community, the whole ballance section of forums wouldn't be needed at all.
30 Jan 2017, 17:24 PM
#32
avatar of Ducati
Benefactor 115

Posts: 164



AK47's, lightsabers and they should be able to call in Appache support and tesla towers out of there asses and and and..... Come on dude


I'd buy that commander.
31 Jan 2017, 00:18 AM
#33
avatar of LoopDloop

Posts: 3046

jump backJump back to quoted post29 Jan 2017, 20:35 PMJoeH


Ima ignore you now, you are nothing but a troll.

How does that make me a troll?
31 Jan 2017, 05:21 AM
#34
avatar of A. Soldier

Posts: 3094 | Subs: 2



It's the first time I see someone arguing for a change even though he explicitly states that this is going to make top level gameplay even more imbalanced and that it is his l2p issue. Btw, the ballance at lower levels than top of the top is given by the matchmaker rather than stats. If the ballance of top level wasn't important for the community, the whole ballance section of forums wouldn't be needed at all.


So what now, let's balance the game around it's best players and how they play instead of around the majority of them players and how THEY play. That's bullshit and really if that were the case then what's the point to balance forums at all? Relic should just either see their replays or add them directly and ask what the top players want and think it would be balanced for them.

Balancing the game around it's top players while leaving the majority down in the mud, struggling to reach the top players' skill level makes absolutely no sense, some people just want to go home and and do a chilling match, not have an intense hardcore competitive match because some people just don't have the time to learn about every stat and every unit and how to use them, they just wanna play.
MMX
31 Jan 2017, 06:36 AM
#35
avatar of MMX

Posts: 997 | Subs: 1



So what now, let's balance the game around it's best players and how they play instead of around the majority of them players and how THEY play. That's bullshit and really if that were the case then what's the point to balance forums at all? Relic should just either see their replays or add them directly and ask what the top players want and think it would be balanced for them.

Balancing the game around it's top players while leaving the majority down in the mud, struggling to reach the top players' skill level makes absolutely no sense, some people just want to go home and and do a chilling match, not have an intense hardcore competitive match because some people just don't have the time to learn about every stat and every unit and how to use them, they just wanna play.


well, maybe you're just trolling or trying to be sarcastic, but if not this is easily the most ridiculous 'concept' of how to properly balance a game i read in years. anyway, the post you quoted basically says it all already. balance should be top-down, not bottom-up, everything else can be adjusted via matchmaking.
31 Jan 2017, 08:43 AM
#36
avatar of A. Soldier

Posts: 3094 | Subs: 2

jump backJump back to quoted post31 Jan 2017, 06:36 AMMMX


well, maybe you're just trolling or trying to be sarcastic, but if not this is easily the most ridiculous 'concept' of how to properly balance a game i read in years. anyway, the post you quoted basically says it all already. balance should be top-down, not bottom-up, everything else can be adjusted via matchmaking.


Balance should be in the middle, not top down or bottom up.

And no I'm not fucking trolling I'm giving you my sincere not competitive opinion on it, I play for fun, not to be the best or to be competitive, and I don't agree with Relic's attitude of gearing up both CoH 2 and DoW III for competitive play OR many of their balance choices again, geared towards competitive.

If you want to play competitive so much I suggest playing StarCraft 2 and leaving tactical RTS games alone because obvious they're not for you, OR you make your own competitive mod and play with that.

I still see no reason why there should be both "competitive" and "casual" modes where the balance and access to units is different or whatever, as long as competitive players don't just waltz in and make changes which are not wanted or needed by the casual playerbase.
31 Jan 2017, 09:59 AM
#37
avatar of le_saucisson_masque

Posts: 485 | Subs: 1



It's the first time I see someone arguing for a change even though he explicitly states that this is going to make top level gameplay even more imbalanced and that it is his l2p issue. Btw, the ballance at lower levels than top of the top is given by the matchmaker rather than stats. If the ballance of top level wasn't important for the community, the whole ballance section of forums wouldn't be needed at all.


+1

Listening to low level players is what made relic do poor balance.

At least, it seems with the winter balance patch that they finally understood that.

There is a reason why no one care, when speaking about balance, at low and medium level player.
This reason is that they obviously don t know enough of the game (else they would be better).

This is also the reason why every guy shoud put his playercard in signature before they start speaking but that s only my opinion.
31 Jan 2017, 10:36 AM
#38
avatar of SUCKmyCLOCK

Posts: 207



So what now, let's balance the game around it's best players and how they play instead of around the majority of them players and how THEY play. That's bullshit and really if that were the case then what's the point to balance forums at all? Relic should just either see their replays or add them directly and ask what the top players want and think it would be balanced for them.

Balancing the game around it's top players while leaving the majority down in the mud, struggling to reach the top players' skill level makes absolutely no sense, some people just want to go home and and do a chilling match, not have an intense hardcore competitive match because some people just don't have the time to learn about every stat and every unit and how to use them, they just wanna play.


:drool::lolol::rofl::loco: Please please please tell me you are joking????
31 Jan 2017, 10:49 AM
#39
avatar of Dangerous-Cloth

Posts: 2066

As people have stated they are supposed to be less effective in the late game due to the strong start they give you. Changing that means there is no drawback at all, which isn't usually how tactical decisions are supposed to go in strategy games.


Riflemen
31 Jan 2017, 10:58 AM
#40
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13091 | Subs: 1



+1

Listening to low level players is what made relic do poor balance.

At least, it seems with the winter balance patch that they finally understood that.

There is a reason why no one care, when speaking about balance, at low and medium level player.
This reason is that they obviously don t know enough of the game (else they would be better).

This is also the reason why every guy shoud put his playercard in signature before they start speaking but that s only my opinion.


Actually that is completely wrong. A person with actually little knowledge of the game can simply copy build order and be successful.

People who know more about the game are usually moders and caster and that is why Relic chose these people to design the next patch and not Top players.

The assumption that playcard is related to knowledge of game mechanics is only that a big assumption. Simply check the playcards of the people doing the WBP.
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
  • Oberkommando West flag Oziligath
  • The British Forces flag T.R. Sidewinder
uploaded by Oziligath

Board Info

210 users are online: 2 members and 208 guests
aerafield, Gbpirate
23 posts in the last 24h
179 posts in the last week
683 posts in the last month
Registered members: 33956
Welcome our newest member, George
Most online: 1221 users on 25 Feb 2020, 12:03 PM