Login

russian armor

Volks are disgustingly good, need toning down.

PAGES (13)down
16 Nov 2018, 10:55 AM
#221
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13476 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post16 Nov 2018, 10:40 AMEsxile


As mentioned above, the issue isn't being the best because as you already mentioned it, USF riflemen are already superior to volks and, on the other hand, need to have a certain balance with Pzgren and Obers.
The problem is more about timing and manpower available to outspam the USF on the early game disponible for OKW.

Actually being the more versatile infantry is part of the issue. If other faction have equally or better units the faction design issues kick in.

It is the same issue with Wer mortar, it was superior due to faction design, and similar weapon in the hands of the USF was proven to be simply broken.

VG's ended up losing their trade mark vet 5 veterancy bonuses because of the versatility the ST44 upgrade provided.

Either all faction will become similar with similar tech and similar unit or factions will retain their uniqueness both in units and design.

Being the most versatile mainline infantry is a USF trade mark and that is why it comes hand to hand with limited access to support weapon via tech tree.
16 Nov 2018, 11:10 AM
#222
avatar of ullumulu

Posts: 2243

Whats with combined army for allie faction? Why should allis allowed to blobb one unit and controll 4-6 unts as one and run around the field?
16 Nov 2018, 13:06 PM
#223
avatar of thedarkarmadillo

Posts: 5279

Whats with combined army for allie faction? Why should allis allowed to blobb one unit and controll 4-6 unts as one and run around the field?

Obviously blobbing is garbage and fuck relic for trying to make it easier all the time by nerfing the tits out of fantastic blob obliterators (demo and sturmtiger for example) but Ost has the ability to control blobs from the word go and can currenty build no pop blob stoppers with both grens and pios.

OKW just has a more efficient and flexible counterblob.
16 Nov 2018, 13:11 PM
#224
avatar of ullumulu

Posts: 2243


Obviously blobbing is garbage and fuck relic for trying to make it easier all the time by nerfing the tits out of fantastic blob obliterators (demo and sturmtiger for example) but Ost has the ability to control blobs from the word go and can currenty build no pop blob stoppers with both grens and pios.

OKW just has a more efficient and flexible counterblob.


look from here the next 5min and repaet pls ur post and think about it

https://youtu.be/QkfIocCJQ4c?t=7714
16 Nov 2018, 13:35 PM
#225
avatar of Lago

Posts: 3260

look from here the next 5min and repaet pls ur post and think about it
https://youtu.be/QkfIocCJQ4c?t=7714


Massive force disparity. Four tanks microed in reverse will beat one tank microed perfectly.
16 Nov 2018, 14:05 PM
#226
avatar of Jae For Jett
Senior Strategist Badge

Posts: 1002 | Subs: 2

Endured this dozens of times from this same guy, and me "acting that rude" is obviously in proportion to his behaviour towards me.

"But he did it first."

You realize how childish of an excuse that is? I cant say it doesnt make sense, but thats now how you act if you expect to be taken seriously. You've probably heard it before, but if you go down to their level, then youre no better than them. Thats not how you get people to take you seriously and respect what you say...
16 Nov 2018, 14:20 PM
#227
avatar of Jae For Jett
Senior Strategist Badge

Posts: 1002 | Subs: 2



I see your point, but having that much early game manpower is bad for the sov/okw matchup, even if it does make for a "balanced" matchup. Because OKW has such early game power, soviet players are forced to get an m3. The m3 also has to be really strong in order to make up this power gap, meaning it has to hit harder than it should for its timing. It also just hurts build diversity since you always have to get an m3 since its the only way you survive. With OKW putting out less early game pressure, sov can explore more early build options, and OKW can get power in other areas to make up for the oppressive early game they lose. Basically, lowering OKW starting manpower can allow matchups that are currently balanced to be made into balanced AND fun/healthy matchups.

Finally, rifles to 260/26 probably will cause problems for the ost/usf matchup. If an ost player mismanages his mg42, then the usf player quickly achives map dominance. Straight up cheaper rifles can easily put this early matchup into a dangerous state as it makes the early game far more punishing for the ost player. Also, rifles would simply vastly overperform for 26 manpower. Finally, cheaper rifles would hurt build diversity. Why get a weapon team when you can get a cheap core squad that performs well? Other options (the kind of combined arms options I think the game should be pushing) become worse in comparison if you buff rifles like that.
16 Nov 2018, 15:12 PM
#228
avatar of ullumulu

Posts: 2243

jump backJump back to quoted post16 Nov 2018, 13:35 PMLago


Massive force disparity. Four tanks microed in reverse will beat one tank microed perfectly.


lul.

Didnt u seen thant the axis had a massive combine armed army..whis was neglate by a IS blobb easily? (even without losing some models!)


and this IS hadnt even LMGs equipped!! imagine they would...
16 Nov 2018, 15:29 PM
#229
avatar of Sander93

Posts: 3166 | Subs: 6


I see your point, but having that much early game manpower is bad for the sov/okw matchup, even if it does make for a "balanced" matchup. Because OKW has such early game power, soviet players are forced to get an m3. The m3 also has to be really strong in order to make up this power gap, meaning it has to hit harder than it should for its timing. It also just hurts build diversity since you always have to get an m3 since its the only way you survive. With OKW putting out less early game pressure, sov can explore more early build options, and OKW can get power in other areas to make up for the oppressive early game they lose. Basically, lowering OKW starting manpower can allow matchups that are currently balanced to be made into balanced AND fun/healthy matchups.

Finally, rifles to 260/26 probably will cause problems for the ost/usf matchup. If an ost player mismanages his mg42, then the usf player quickly achives map dominance. Straight up cheaper rifles can easily put this early matchup into a dangerous state as it makes the early game far more punishing for the ost player. Also, rifles would simply vastly overperform for 26 manpower. Finally, cheaper rifles would hurt build diversity. Why get a weapon team when you can get a cheap core squad that performs well? Other options (the kind of combined arms options I think the game should be pushing) become worse in comparison if you buff rifles like that.


Fair enough, although I'm still not the one saying Rifles should be 26 MP to reinforce. I'm only suggesting to lower the recruitment cost so the change would basically only impact USF build timing (and make it a bit more forgiving to replace squads but that's kinda neglectable).

Alternatively the most prefered solution (but also the most difficult one as it has so many side effects) is indeed to take some of OKW's early game power and move it to the mid game. I think this would be best achieved by lowering early MP but making Obers somehow come much earlier. One proposal I always liked is to make the T4 much cheaper (like 1000MP and 50 fuel for example) but only give acces to stock Obers (and maybe JP4) and put AA upgrade, Obers MG 34, PZIV and Panther behind a 100MP 70 fuel upgrade. Or less drastically make Obers buildable from HQ once the first truck has been set up.
16 Nov 2018, 16:04 PM
#230
avatar of Lago

Posts: 3260

lul.

Didnt u seen thant the axis had a massive combine armed army..whis was neglate by a IS blobb easily? (even without losing some models!)

and this IS hadnt even LMGs equipped!! imagine they would...


They'd probably be less effective being used that way. That build's based around spamming Assault.

If you watch the clip you linked, six Infantry Section squads are fighting a couple of vehicles, two LMG Grenadier squads and a large number of anti-tank guns.

Anti-tank guns don't hurt infantry, a Scout Car isn't going to wipe 30 infantry models particularly fast, and 2 vs 6 you wouldn't expect the Grenadiers to win, especially as they were also not using cover against the horde of Infantry Sections.
16 Nov 2018, 16:42 PM
#231
avatar of murky depths

Posts: 607

Yeah, prodi and price spamming blobs is totally a faction issue and not at all related to the players in question.

16 Nov 2018, 16:48 PM
#232
avatar of elchino7
Senior Moderator Badge

Posts: 8154 | Subs: 2

jump backJump back to quoted post16 Nov 2018, 16:04 PMLago


They'd probably be less effective being used that way. That build's based around spamming Assault.



It's like the first time he sees Cpt Sprice play. He "tactically" blobs you with any faction. He goes for a flank and if you have isolated units, you lose everything on retreat if you don't react fast enough. It also backfires sometimes.
16 Nov 2018, 16:56 PM
#233
avatar of ShadowLinkX37
Director of Moderation Badge

Posts: 4183 | Subs: 4

jump backJump back to quoted post16 Nov 2018, 09:11 AMKatitof

If 2 squads have equal cost of getting a squad, then yes, the one with more models will have lower reinforcement. More expensive squad with more models will also have lower cost.
No, its not garbage excuse, its mathematical fact that people who aren't friends with numbers are unable to beat into their own thick skulls.

No matter how you try to spin and twist it, reinforcement costs are fair and round to ~40% of squads total cost to fully reinforce from 1 model.


The only mathematical fact of squad size is that 6 men squads are better. When reinforcement cost is determined based on squad size there is ZERO possibility the cost is balanced.

Why you ask?

Because our best example, Grenadiers at vet 0 vs conscripts at vet 0 is a 50/50 engagement determined by cover and RNG. Either side costs 240 MP, and has an equal chance of winning. Then you factor in the other positives and negatives such as DPS dropoff per model, squad recrewing, literally any explosive or ballistic weapon that can wipe multiple units and the conclusion is: 6 > 4.

The problem with "I have more models therefore I should have a cheaper reinforce" excuse is this: "I want a 100 man squad but the reinforce cost should be 1.2" Same cost as grenadiers, we can nerf model stats to be equal to grenadiers, but the difference is that squad will NEVER be wiped with any ballistic or explosive unit, it will also be great for recrewing things (although if model stats were that bad they'd disintigrate under any means of fire, but this is obviously an exaggeration).
16 Nov 2018, 17:41 PM
#234
avatar of ullumulu

Posts: 2243

THe thing is: u can easier blobb as allie player. Why? u need mostly bloob one unit type. penals or guards as sov, IS as brit, rifles as USF. this blobb can...when right equiped with all infntery AND armor.

Try this with one unit from axis. blobb pgrens or stpios? not recommended....all others have not the abilty to carry handheld AT-
16 Nov 2018, 18:51 PM
#235
avatar of Jae For Jett
Senior Strategist Badge

Posts: 1002 | Subs: 2


The problem with "I have more models therefore I should have a cheaper reinforce" excuse is this: "I want a 100 man squad but the reinforce cost should be 1.2" Same cost as grenadiers, we can nerf model stats to be equal to grenadiers, but the difference is that squad will NEVER be wiped with any ballistic or explosive unit, it will also be great for recrewing things (although if model stats were that bad they'd disintigrate under any means of fire, but this is obviously an exaggeration).

The models are less effective, therefore they cost less to reinforce. A model that performs (just an example) at rifleman level should cost 28 for its reinforce cost whether its part of a 5 man squad or a 100 man squad. Why should a model cost more simply because its part of a larger squad, its performance is the same.

Yes, larger squad are better than smaller squads (all other factors being the same). But that big squad > small squad dynamic should be (and is) balanced through mechanics other than reinforce cost.

Looking over your comment again, I think youre missing the point (maybe this isnt katitofs point though). The models of a large squad arent cheaper simply because theyre in a larger squad, theyre cheaper because they individually perform worse than the individual models of the smaller squad, and the size advantage is made up for in other ways.
16 Nov 2018, 19:16 PM
#236
avatar of Lago

Posts: 3260

THe thing is: u can easier blobb as allie player. Why? u need mostly bloob one unit type. penals or guards as sov, IS as brit, rifles as USF. this blobb can...when right equiped with all infntery AND armor.

Try this with one unit from axis. blobb pgrens or stpios? not recommended....all others have not the abilty to carry handheld AT-


Anti-armor blobs are not recommended for fighting infantry.
16 Nov 2018, 19:17 PM
#237
avatar of thedarkarmadillo

Posts: 5279

Yupp. Man for man cons << grens. The fact that the first engagements before vet and weapons is RNG proves that. How could you have a 50% chance of winning with 50% more men and pay the same to replace losses?
16 Nov 2018, 19:44 PM
#238
avatar of MakiesKurisu

Posts: 130

THe thing is: u can easier blobb as allie player. Why? u need mostly bloob one unit type. penals or guards as sov, IS as brit, rifles as USF. this blobb can...when right equiped with all infntery AND armor.

Try this with one unit from axis. blobb pgrens or stpios? not recommended....all others have not the abilty to carry handheld AT-

Nothing could stop volks blob until rocket art or m8 hit the field. Their cost effiency just got ridiculous
16 Nov 2018, 19:59 PM
#239
avatar of Michalszym

Posts: 51

Volks are only good if you can get them not to die. If you lose one of them it's very hard to climb back. That's just what I noticed when playing OKW. I suggest some small debuff.
16 Nov 2018, 20:02 PM
#240
avatar of MakiesKurisu

Posts: 130

Yupp. Man for man cons << grens. The fact that the first engagements before vet and weapons is RNG proves that. How could you have a 50% chance of winning with 50% more men and pay the same to replace losses?

In fact, cons are slightly worse. A larger squad size doesn't help in inf contact. It helps when under art fire. Larger squad size means higher RA for each model, and easier to lose models and fire power. Unless in green cover, Cons are more likely to lose models first and lose the fight in first contact.
PAGES (13)down
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

464 users are online: 5 members and 459 guests
Snack_Master, OKSpitfire, donofsandiego, mmp, Kronosaur0s
6 posts in the last 24h
32 posts in the last week
86 posts in the last month
Registered members: 44639
Welcome our newest member, trickproblem
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM