Login

russian armor

Universal Carrier vs Volks

24 Sep 2018, 08:51 AM
#81
avatar of Widerstreit

Posts: 1392

jump backJump back to quoted post24 Sep 2018, 08:25 AMLago

It has a flamethrower because the Royal Engineer squad doesn't.


I would be happy if Ostheer Pio lose its flamer, for a buff to sappper level.
24 Sep 2018, 08:56 AM
#82
avatar of Katitof

Posts: 17891 | Subs: 8



I would be happy if Ostheer Pio lose its flamer, for a buff to sappper level.


We can do that and nerf PGs to sapper level.
We can even remove the extra sight range pios got for no reason.
Hell, we can even move faust from grens to these new PGs so they have similar combat utility sappers will have soon.
24 Sep 2018, 09:01 AM
#83
avatar of Widerstreit

Posts: 1392

Ostheer Pioneers are the worst unit you can equip with a flamer. MP40 of them need close-combar to be effective, flamer needs more range to be not bugged. I would kiss feet to make Ost Pios a combat-engeneer clone. Give it nerfed K98 would be also better than the current situation.

24 Sep 2018, 10:24 AM
#84
avatar of mr.matrix300

Posts: 518

jump backJump back to quoted post24 Sep 2018, 08:25 AMLago

The UC costs no fuel for the same reason the Kubelwagen costs no fuel: Relic decided to give these units a high manpower cost instead of a high fuel cost.


Which is a bad decision (at least when it comes to the UC) anyway. In my opinion there should be made some changes (not only to the price)

jump backJump back to quoted post24 Sep 2018, 08:25 AMLago

It has a flamethrower because the Royal Engineer squad doesn't. It's literally UKF's one garrison counter without an infantry flamer or a proper mortar.

Same goes for OKWs flame nades and yet ppl want to remove them. (Please do not get me wrong. I understand that flamer is needed on UC I just wanted to point out that UC has a big versatility compared to other early LVs)

jump backJump back to quoted post24 Sep 2018, 08:25 AMLago

It's a decent unit but if you really think it's impossible to deal with go play UKF and let your opponent teach you how to counter it.

Did I say it is impossible?
And I acutally did play UKF (1 vs 1 and 2 vs 2) and most times the UC is doing a pretty decent job. Can only really remember one situation where I lost him in the first few minutes and in this case it was 100% my fault(was too close near my enemys base while shooting at Volks and ignoring the warning of my senses that he'll get a raketen soon)




Could you show your playercard since you throwing others' around? Sound like a low rank 4v4 player


I am the one throwing others around? Sure ... I mean it is not like Katitof falsely accused me of not beeing able to break rank 2000 ... Also its kinda funny that you make fun of me because of my playcard while having 0 matches with OKW.
24 Sep 2018, 10:35 AM
#85
avatar of Katitof

Posts: 17891 | Subs: 8


Which is a bad decision (at least when it comes to the UC) anyway. In my opinion there should be made some changes (not only to the price)

Then perhaps a history lesson is in order.
It used to cost fuel, it was not used once.
Its flamer was also much, MUCH stronger in the past, it still wasn't a popular unit due to fuel cost, fragility(with better armor back then) and need for infantry, it also was very bad with its regular weapon and vickers upgrade, all of which was fixed, if you struggle against it atm, its because you refuse to actually put effort into countering it, period.


Same goes for OKWs flame nades and yet ppl want to remove them. (Please do not get me wrong. I understand that flamer is needed on UC I just wanted to point out that UC has a big versatility compared to other early LVs)

Flame nades are completely different thing and are incomparable.
You don't build 5 UCs and upgrade flamers on them, but flame nade can hit you from any of multiple volks and put team weapon into death loop.

And I acutally did play UKF (1 vs 1 and 2 vs 2) and most times the UC is doing a pretty decent job. Can only really remember one situation where I lost him in the first few minutes and in this case it was 100% my fault(was too close near my enemys base while shooting at Volks and ignoring the warning of my senses that he'll get a raketen soon)

You literally just left placement in 1v1 with 50% win ratio.
Its not possible to verify if you played them in team games, but you most certainly did not played RT with them
You have 77 AT games as allies and I doubt more then 10 of them are as british.
Please, do not lie.

Also, I find it hilariously ironic that you claim puppchen can't counter UC reliably, but yet, you decided it'll be a good idea to bring up one example when you lost UC to the very puppchen you claim is ineffective against it.

Irony overload.
24 Sep 2018, 10:50 AM
#86
avatar of mr.matrix300

Posts: 518

jump backJump back to quoted post24 Sep 2018, 10:35 AMKatitof

Flame nades are completely different thing and are incomparable.
You don't build 5 UCs and upgrade flamers on them, but flame nade can hit you from any of multiple volks and put team weapon into death loop.

When was the last time you lost a MG due flamenades? (or when was your last real match at all?)

jump backJump back to quoted post24 Sep 2018, 10:35 AMKatitof

You literally just left placement in 1v1 with 50% win ratio.

I still have more 1 vs 1 matches with UKF than you.

jump backJump back to quoted post24 Sep 2018, 10:35 AMKatitof

You have 77 AT games as allies and I doubt more then 10 of them are as british.

Then keep doubting

jump backJump back to quoted post24 Sep 2018, 10:35 AMKatitof

Also, I find it hilariously ironic that you claim puppchen can't counter UC reliably, but yet, you decided it'll be a good idea to bring up one example when you lost UC to the very puppchen you claim is ineffective against it.

As you may have noticed I wrote that it was my fault losing it in this scenario.
It was damaged and was way too close to the enemy. But nevertheless it helped me to force my enemy to fall back with most of his forces and thus allowing me to take the ammo, fuel and VP on my side.

24 Sep 2018, 10:55 AM
#87
avatar of thedarkarmadillo

Posts: 5279

Denying garrisons and cover anywhere on the map ensures a dominant position which makes already strong volks even stronger. Then having an insta pop flame nade is a problem in part because they are so dominant in numbers. Cons at least have a 6 year animation and usually have to leave cover because they have to drop the molotov at their feet. Plus cons are not core combatants like volks are unless you get ppshs.

Flame nade is probably one of the best in the game when it comes to power granted.
24 Sep 2018, 11:33 AM
#88
avatar of Lago

Posts: 3260

Which is a bad decision (at least when it comes to the UC) anyway. In my opinion there should be made some changes (not only to the price)


Given you're claiming to have enough trouble with the UC to warrant complaining about it I doubt that's a change you'd want to make.

The UC is currently set up as a manpower opportunity cost: you get it instead of an additional infantry section. It's an immediate tradeoff: you trade the capping power of that Infantry Section for mobile fire support.

If you shift that cost from manpower to fuel you turn the UC into an early game power spike: both the lower manpower cost on the UC and the delay to T1 means you'll probably be facing the UC and the additional infantry squad. It's a delayed tradeoff: you get a much stronger build early on but delay your teching.

I agree with Relic in that making the UC an immediate tradeoff is the better way to do it for UKF.

24 Sep 2018, 14:28 PM
#89
avatar of FelixTHM

Posts: 503 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post24 Sep 2018, 11:33 AMLago


Given you're claiming to have enough trouble with the UC to warrant complaining about it I doubt that's a change you'd want to make.

The UC is currently set up as a manpower opportunity cost: you get it instead of an additional infantry section. It's an immediate tradeoff: you trade the capping power of that Infantry Section for mobile fire support.

If you shift that cost from manpower to fuel you turn the UC into an early game power spike: both the lower manpower cost on the UC and the delay to T1 means you'll probably be facing the UC and the additional infantry squad. It's a delayed tradeoff: you get a much stronger build early on but delay your teching.

I agree with Relic in that making the UC an immediate tradeoff is the better way to do it for UKF.




Well-explained. I'd agree that the UC is in a very reasonable spot right now.

It used to be completely oppressive with its nonsensical armour, which made it virtually invulnerable to mg42 or Kar98s (both Grens and Volks). Right now it's actually killable by small arms fire, and can be forced to retreat by Sturmpios/sustained Volks fire, which makes Rak not a 100% necessity.

Rak will be useful (when it isn't busy shooting terrain features), and I see it as a very good investment because if you go flak HT/Luchs to counter the IS/Vickers, your opponent should be sending out an AEC anyway.
24 Sep 2018, 19:34 PM
#90
avatar of SuperHansFan

Posts: 833


It used to be completely oppressive with its nonsensical armour, which made it virtually invulnerable to mg42 or Kar98s (both Grens and Volks). Right now it's actually killable by small arms fire, and can be forced to retreat by Sturmpios/sustained Volks fire, which makes Rak not a 100% necessity.



You are quite simply wrong and spouting falsehoods. Really watch any hans vid from prepatch and you will see the old armour was not "invulnerable". MG42 would win a straight up fight with vanilla UC so you needed to be careful with engaging them until tech and WASP.

But then by WASP he has MG42 inc rounds and 222 on top of faust, so it really wasn't as terrible as you make out. For reference old UC died quicker than the Wehr halftrack to small arms (FHT armour was 9, old UC was 10 but FHT had more health). I mean really if it was impossible to kill as you claim then we would have seen UKF building one maybe two every game... but they didn't. It had good armour for a light but you are overreacting.

If I had my way WASP and Vickers upon upgrade should be buffed to 9 armour and have the range nerf reverted, wehr FHT should also remain the same without any nerfs. It kind of sucks for the MP investment right now, which goes for a lot of UKF units really.
24 Sep 2018, 22:33 PM
#91
avatar of LoopDloop

Posts: 3053




You are quite simply wrong and spouting falsehoods. Really watch any hans vid from prepatch and you will see the old armour was not "invulnerable". MG42 would win a straight up fight with vanilla UC so you needed to be careful with engaging them until tech and WASP.

But then by WASP he has MG42 inc rounds and 222 on top of faust, so it really wasn't as terrible as you make out. For reference old UC died quicker than the Wehr halftrack to small arms (FHT armour was 9, old UC was 10 but FHT had more health). I mean really if it was impossible to kill as you claim then we would have seen UKF building one maybe two every game... but they didn't. It had good armour for a light but you are overreacting.

If I had my way WASP and Vickers upon upgrade should be buffed to 9 armour and have the range nerf reverted, wehr FHT should also remain the same without any nerfs. It kind of sucks for the MP investment right now, which goes for a lot of UKF units really.

The fact that you could even entertain the idea of a light car/vehicle/thing going up against an mg frontally means it was a bit ridiculous. The kubel, clown car, and wc51 can’t do it, so it makes sense that the UC can’t either. It’s also outdated statistics and mostly irrelevant now, and UC is in a pretty good spot besides WASP being bad and overpriced at the same time.
25 Sep 2018, 12:14 PM
#92
avatar of Kharn

Posts: 264

Yeah the only flamer weapon available to the UKF is like.. what 90 munitions on a dinky little UC? Nowhere near the speed or maneuverability of a Halftrack. Sure it comes sooner, but you can't slap flamers on anything else so its a necessary tool stuck on a unit that can easily be dealt with.

By comparison mid to late game engineers w/ flamers can still run around taking out shit, and even FHT are seen mid to late game as their speed+smoke lets them dart around w/ infantry detection.. but the UC is just an early game unit. Similiar to the kubel, except without a great vet ability to map hack.

UC may not be the bad unit that exists in the UKF line up, but it's part of a larger problem on how the UKF are designed to function as a whole.

Maybe revert the armor changes, range, but lock the Wasp upgrade behind a level of tech so you can't just have it straight out of the gate as there's little you can do as Wehr to counter it easily. It can wasp before you have an AT gun out, a good player wont let it get fausted and against OKW while there's an easy Rak, if you micro your Wasp well you don't lose it, just repair quite a bit.

But locking it behind a mandatory tech upgrade would mean the possibility of being more prepared to counter a wasp and if you don't have the counter out by then it's on you.

Personally, I haven't had problems countering a wasp in its current.. or pre-patched state. As the UC is not the fastest, nor the most maneuverable as its acceleration is balls. By I'm trying to sympathize here for the idea that gating the upgrade could mean that players have slightly more time. Though, I'd propose if it's gated the cost of the wasp upgrade needs to drop to 60.... unlike the FHT it doesn't have smoke, or infantry detection, so it's still very vunerable to just being destroyed outright as it's HP pool is also lower but the reduction in munitions makes it sting less when it dies (also a mine will blow it up I think, just 1? )
26 Sep 2018, 16:53 PM
#93
avatar of FelixTHM

Posts: 503 | Subs: 1




You are quite simply wrong and spouting falsehoods. Really watch any hans vid from prepatch and you will see the old armour was not "invulnerable". MG42 would win a straight up fight with vanilla UC so you needed to be careful with engaging them until tech and WASP.

But then by WASP he has MG42 inc rounds and 222 on top of faust, so it really wasn't as terrible as you make out. For reference old UC died quicker than the Wehr halftrack to small arms (FHT armour was 9, old UC was 10 but FHT had more health). I mean really if it was impossible to kill as you claim then we would have seen UKF building one maybe two every game... but they didn't. It had good armour for a light but you are overreacting.

If I had my way WASP and Vickers upon upgrade should be buffed to 9 armour and have the range nerf reverted, wehr FHT should also remain the same without any nerfs. It kind of sucks for the MP investment right now, which goes for a lot of UKF units really.



Yes, I totally meant that literally. Invulnerable means 100% invulnerability to small arms fire, just like medium tank armour. That's obviously what I meant when I wrote my previous post, because 10 Grenadier squads shooting for one hour at the UC wouldn't be able to even deal 1 damage to it.

Glad that clears things up.

The UC used to have only a 10% chance of being penned by rifles while needing 15 rifle shots to kill as a T0 unit. Means you needed an average of 150 rifle shots. MG42 at range has about 1.5 pen, which meant that 85% of shots would bounce. A full burst couldn't even deal 10% damage to the UC. It was indeed an oppressive unit for the timing it came out at. That is the exact same reason Kubel front armour was nerfed. Because T0 units with a very high % chance to deflect small arms fire and good anti-infantry capabilities are simply too effective in the early game.

In your own example you pointed out it had higher armour than T2 units which required fuel. In the T0 stage of the game, such high armour simply breaks game balance.
26 Sep 2018, 17:05 PM
#94
avatar of SuperHansFan

Posts: 833



snip


Less health and at T0 way way less lethality than FHT because ya know it has no flamer yet. Unless you want to argue Wehr HT with MG and no flamers is OP vs inf too? I mean it has 320 health and 9 armour, IS and cons can hardly damage it


15% of MG42 shots penning was fine, because the MG42 rpm was easily enough to make up for it. Hence why it won a 1vs1 vs vanilla UC
Really it's no point posting stats if you don't understand how they actually work in terms of DPS.

Hardly OP because like I said we never saw them built every game. WASP is not a T0 unit, it is fielded same time as Ost T2, might want to check the unlock requirements friend.

Basically your argument boils down to "cherry picked examples of when vanilla UC is fielded then skipping to WASP as if vanilla UC does the same damage". It upgrades a similar time to FHT so should rightly so have similar lethality, now it is trash in comparison so should have the nerfs reverted.
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

473 users are online: 473 guests
9 posts in the last 24h
37 posts in the last week
152 posts in the last month
Registered members: 45058
Welcome our newest member, podcasts
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM