Login

russian armor

Feelings after the Decemberpatch

PAGES (10)down
1 Jan 2019, 01:25 AM
#101
avatar of TheGentlemenTroll

Posts: 1044 | Subs: 1



Rifleman's DPS is higher at the mid-close and is way more likely to come out on top than a volks or gren when facing opposing cqc units

-> so true, rifleman is strong when they are fighting CQC

if u can ^^

volk always 1 more squad than rifleman because they are so cheap

useless rear echelon cant help combat when "free CQC super pio" slaying rifleman in CQC

use cover and flank?

volk flame nade always neutralize rifleman in close - mid cover

ok, ur good skill makes rifleman win volks, and how can deal with "Free CQC expert super pio" to low hp rifleman?

use well again? spam more shitty rifleman?

AE is one of the best answer in this situation

Problem is not AE, the "FREE CQC super pio" is real unbalance unit




Rifles are best at mid range, and beat both volks and grens. If strum pios are by themselves sit at long range in cover and hope rng drops models before they get close enough to melt you.

Yeah the biggest issue in the USF vs OKW matchup is just the number of squads you face early compared to yours. Although I have found the new tech makes it easier than it was before since 50 cals come faster.
1 Jan 2019, 01:28 AM
#102
avatar of ShadowLinkX37
Director of Moderation Badge

Posts: 4183 | Subs: 4



Man, its a joke. Dont take it personally. Also its already there. Dont get too mad or mods will begin a new year banning our a**es!
:banned:


Ur playcard isn't up, although bugs do occur occasionally. just fyi

Invised multiple posts for being offtopic.
1 Jan 2019, 01:44 AM
#103
avatar of F1sh

Posts: 521

jump backJump back to quoted post30 Dec 2018, 20:15 PMpigsoup
cannot wait for new commanders.


They should fix existing commanders, not add new ones. There are still a bunch of outdated and shit commanders.
1 Jan 2019, 01:50 AM
#104
avatar of Stug life

Posts: 4474

An elegant nerf to the JLI is reducing the snipe threshold to 40% but doubling the fire rate of the scoped weapon
1 Jan 2019, 04:58 AM
#105
avatar of LeOverlord

Posts: 310



They have practically the same RA (SP 0,87; AE 0,9), but 5 models and higher near range DPS (SP 64, AE 67) as well as longer range for near DPS (SP 3; AE 10). They have higher on-the-move accuracy/DPS (SP ~50%, AE ~66%). They cost 280MP as opposed to 300MP. They get the flamethrower as a stock upgrade. They have better combat veterancy and lower requirements. They face Kar 98K mainline infantry as opposed to M1 Garands.

How exactly are they worse than Sturmpioneers?


So apparently it's not their flamethrower that bothers players, it's the CQB as i expected. I haven't seen anyone saying "Stumpioneers are very strong, they need to be changed". Since i started this game it blows my mind that Engineers are able to beat well trained soldiers. Again, my suggestion is this : Change AE's default loadout. Change one of their Grease guns.
1 Jan 2019, 06:14 AM
#106
avatar of NaOCl

Posts: 369

No need to nerfed JLI into the ground.
1 Jan 2019, 06:17 AM
#107
avatar of mortiferum

Posts: 571

jump backJump back to quoted post1 Jan 2019, 06:14 AMNaOCl
No need to nerfed JLI into the ground.


They need to nerf it to the ground because the people who got stomped must have a way to vent their anger ))))))
1 Jan 2019, 07:38 AM
#108
avatar of NaOCl

Posts: 369



So apparently it's not their flamethrower that bothers players, it's the CQB as i expected. I haven't seen anyone saying "Stumpioneers are very strong, they need to be changed". Since i started this game it blows my mind that Engineers are able to beat well trained soldiers. Again, my suggestion is this : Change AE's default loadout. Change one of their Grease guns.


You imply combat engineers were not/should not be combat effective units.

Combat engineers were elite troops for all factions.

Combat engineers were/are often expected to lead the assault before the infantry in combat situations.
1 Jan 2019, 07:48 AM
#109
avatar of blancat

Posts: 810

jump backJump back to quoted post1 Jan 2019, 07:38 AMNaOCl


You imply combat engineers were not/should not be combat effective units.

Combat engineers were elite troops for all factions.

Combat engineers were/are often expected to lead the assault before the infantry in combat situations.



Combat engineer is support unit, not elite troop


lead assault? for what? with mine detecter?

That is not LEAD, just supporting


only "german special superior strumpio" and assault engineer can be elite troop
1 Jan 2019, 07:48 AM
#110
avatar of LeOverlord

Posts: 310

jump backJump back to quoted post1 Jan 2019, 07:38 AMNaOCl


You imply combat engineers were not/should not be combat effective units.

Combat engineers were elite troops for all factions.

Combat engineers were/are often expected to lead the assault before the infantry in combat situations.


In this case, let Assault Engineers are they are, if you also imply that they are elite troops. And to get into history a little bit, German engineer units also led the attacks against Greece but they were neutralized. Anyways, back on the topic, do we really need to discuss how submachine guns are superior to Assault Rifles in CQB situations and how ARs are superior to submachine guns in medium-far range? Again, if your issue is the CQB, let's change their damage output. Let's reduce it.
1 Jan 2019, 08:08 AM
#111
avatar of NaOCl

Posts: 369



In this case, let Assault Engineers are they are, if you also imply that they are elite troops. And to get into history a little bit, German engineer units also led the attacks against Greece but they were neutralized. Anyways, back on the topic, do we really need to discuss how submachine guns are superior to Assault Rifles in CQB situations and how ARs are superior to submachine guns in medium-far range? Again, if your issue is the CQB, let's change their damage output. Let's reduce it.


>Elite troops never die.
1 Jan 2019, 08:10 AM
#112
avatar of NaOCl

Posts: 369




Combat engineer is support unit, not elite troop


lead assault? for what? with mine detecter?

That is not LEAD, just supporting


only "german special superior strumpio" and assault engineer can be elite troop


I mean IRL, like the greek guy was saying.
1 Jan 2019, 08:32 AM
#113
avatar of LeOverlord

Posts: 310

jump backJump back to quoted post1 Jan 2019, 08:08 AMNaOCl


>Elite troops never die.


And i'm playing airsoft, so i'm a professional operator ready to kill ISIL insurgents. I'm better than SAS, Delta Force, JTF2 and other Tier 1 special forces teams :P

On topic again : So what? Obersoldaten, Rangers and Paratroopers are also elite infantry but they also die because they are designed to take casualties. We are playing an RTS game, not a Captain America or a Universal Soldier video game.
1 Jan 2019, 09:26 AM
#114
avatar of Sander93

Posts: 3166 | Subs: 6

Again, if your issue is the CQB, let's change their damage output. Let's reduce it.


The issue is not their strength in general, the issue is specifically their strength in the first 5 minutes of the game. Anyway I have no idea where you want to go with this discussion because you seem to take it in a completely different direction with every single post.
1 Jan 2019, 09:38 AM
#115
avatar of LeOverlord

Posts: 310



The issue is not their strength in general, the issue is specifically their strength in the first 5 minutes of the game. Anyway I have no idea where you want to go with this discussion because you seem to take it in a completely different direction with every single post.


Stumpioneers are also strong in the first 5 minutes of the game, but nobody says a thing about them. It's just that we all got used to seeing the early game USF getting steamrolled and now we can't accept that they have alternatives and a stronger start because of that. I just think that it's not a solution to lock their flamethrower behind tech. If we really want to adjust them, let's increase their cost or put them on cooldown. Or even better, change their stats, decrease their damage output. These are some ideas.
1 Jan 2019, 09:54 AM
#116
avatar of Sander93

Posts: 3166 | Subs: 6

Stumpioneers are also strong in the first 5 minutes of the game, but nobody says a thing about them. It's just that we all got used to seeing the early game USF getting steamrolled and now we can't accept that they have alternatives and a stronger start because of that.


Sturmpioneers early game combat power has been a discussion for ages. Secondly the Assault Engineers are stronger than them as shown by the stats I posted earlier.

Thirdly, Assault Engineers go up against enemies that aren't as well equiped to deal with them as the Allies can deal with Sturmpioneers. USF have Riflemen with good near and mid range DPS, Soviets have 6 men squads and the Brits have T0 HMGs and the UC. Sturmpioneers are simply less problematic than 2-3 Assault Engineer openings because they have less impact.


I just think that it's not a solution to lock their flamethrower behind tech. If we really want to adjust them, let's increase their cost or put them on cooldown. Or even better, change their stats, decrease their damage output. These are some ideas.


Again, these changes would negatively affect their entire game performance when only the first 5 minutes are the problem. The solution should therefore be searched for in delaying the timing of their power creep. Giving them 1.0 target size (0.9 at vet1) and putting the flamethrower behind tech would do exactly that.
1 Jan 2019, 09:58 AM
#117
avatar of LeOverlord

Posts: 310



Sturmpioneers early game combat power has been a discussion for ages. Secondly the Assault Engineers are stronger than them as shown by the stats I posted earlier.

Thirdly, Assault Engineers go up against enemies that aren't as well equiped to deal with them as the Allies can deal with Sturmpioneers. USF have Riflemen with good near and mid range DPS, Soviets have 6 men squads and the Brits have T0 HMGs and the UC. Sturmpioneers are simply less problematic than 2-3 Assault Engineer openings because they have less impact.




Again, these changes would negatively affect their entire game performance when only the first 5 minutes are the problem. The solution should therefore be searched for in delaying the timing of their power creep. Giving them 1.0 target size (0.9 at vet1) and putting the flamethrower behind tech would do exactly that.


Then there is no need to pick Armor Company at all. You just get Rifle Company, give flamethrower to Echelons and also stick a BAR to them. Voilà, you get a flamethrower without struggling.
1 Jan 2019, 12:51 PM
#119
avatar of Sturmpanther
Lead Strategist Badge

Posts: 5441 | Subs: 35

Guys focus! If you want to discuss that okw has a sturmpio etc create a new thread. I enjoy reading some ideas for some units.
1 Jan 2019, 13:01 PM
#120
avatar of Lago

Posts: 3260

Assault Engineers are fine most of the time: they're snareless CQC units so later on you've got plenty of ways to counter them.

The problem is how quickly USF can field and mass them, so the solution I think is to make them slower to build: make Pathfinders and Assault Engineers be built from the HQ with a build time comparable to Riflemen.

That way, you won't have USF having two squads on the field right at the start, and two Assault Engineers in the time it takes to build one Rifleman squad.
PAGES (10)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

355 users are online: 1 member and 354 guests
Nickbn
13 posts in the last 24h
39 posts in the last week
93 posts in the last month
Registered members: 44643
Welcome our newest member, Leiliqu96
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM