Login

russian armor

USA September patch discussion

  • This thread is locked
PAGES (25)down
14 Aug 2019, 19:47 PM
#1
avatar of Sturmpanther
Lead Strategist Badge

Posts: 4802 | Subs: 14

Only for USA
USF
14 Aug 2019, 19:56 PM
#2
avatar of Stug life

Posts: 3895

Jackson price increase still doesn't give it a weakness like other TD (flanking, speed,fixed turret, accuracy, etc)

i would rather remove pack howy auto fire but increase the barrage range to 160 and fire more shells x barrage so player input is rewarded, USF already has a mortar for auto fire role

rifle company changes will still not make it viable

ok with other changes
14 Aug 2019, 20:05 PM
#3
avatar of Esxile

Posts: 2605 | Subs: 1

Quite some nerfs to important late game units.

I don't really understand the +5 fuel for the Jackson, looks like more a political nerf to please some players than anything constructive. If the team has a constructive feedback about it.

M8 Scott barrage is bad, not sure if 20 second barrage cooldown reduction is interesting.

Pak Howi nerf is big, since the unit almost only depend on AA to vet, at least reduce the vet1 requirement. Adding a 4th shell to the initial barrage would help to understand better the AA nerf.

Pershing change is ok, a bit more consistency but still a nerf at the end.

Time on Target, better consistency is always welcome.

Rifle Company changes seems a joke to me at first view, I fail to see how adding riflemen field defense to the doctrine is going to make it more popular. But you can tell me.

Paratroopers is probably the best change here, and probably going to be nerfed before hitting final stage or the bulletin give -%3 receive accuracy is going to be nerf in return.
14 Aug 2019, 20:21 PM
#4
avatar of Mazianni

Posts: 418

I for one really like the Rifle Company and field defenses buffs. The Riflemen mines took wayyyyy too long to plant and so I'm glad that's been fixed, will make USF mines much more viable. Fire up actually being useable is fucking sweet too. Same with Time on Target. The Paratrooper change is nice as well, these guys bled far too much and might actually show up in competitive games now.

I think this fixes Rifle Company, more or less. It gets the best off-map barrage and the best USF medium tank, and now it also gives Riflemen mines and sandbags, which is crucial and fitting to the name. Certainly beats out infantry company in a 1v1 now, imo.

Other than that, RIP M8 Scott and M1 Pack Howie.
14 Aug 2019, 20:22 PM
#5
avatar of Jae For Jett
Senior Strategist Badge

Posts: 922 | Subs: 2

jump backJump back to quoted post14 Aug 2019, 20:05 PMEsxile
Quite some nerfs to important late game units.

I don't really understand the +5 fuel for the Jackson, looks like more a political nerf to please some players than anything constructive. If the team has a constructive feedback about it.

M8 Scott barrage is bad, not sure if 20 second barrage cooldown reduction is interesting.

Pak Howi nerf is big, since the unit almost only depend on AA to vet, at least reduce the vet1 requirement. Adding a 4th shell to the initial barrage would help to understand better the AA nerf.

Pershing change is ok, a bit more consistency but still a nerf at the end.

Time on Target, better consistency is always welcome.

Rifle Company changes seems a joke to me at first view, I fail to see how adding riflemen field defense to the doctrine is going to make it more popular. But you can tell me.

Paratroopers is probably the best change here, and probably going to be nerfed before hitting final stage or the bulletin give -%3 receive accuracy is going to be nerf in return.

We were also considering 150 fuel for the jackson nerf, but wanted to be conservative give the other changes to usf's late game and just how essential the jackson is to any usf composition.

Adding riflemen field defenses AND making fireup useable will absolutely make it more popular. I don't expect it to make rifle company viable (honestly, I myself was hoping to get in some more drastic changes to the doctrine), but it'll make it more cohesive as a doctrine and less of a pain to use for those players that simply want to use it. It would take a lot to make it competitive against heavy cavalry, armor, mechanized, airborne, recon, or infantry (perhaps even urban assault).
ddd
14 Aug 2019, 20:50 PM
#6
avatar of ddd

Posts: 508 | Subs: 1

Sandbags and sprint in one commander dont match, it should be something supporting aggressive playstyle to go with other abilities in this commander. Like good on the move upgrade for rifles that does not require weapon racks (scoped garands?).
14 Aug 2019, 20:54 PM
#7
avatar of Esxile

Posts: 2605 | Subs: 1


We were also considering 150 fuel for the jackson nerf, but wanted to be conservative give the other changes to usf's late game and just how essential the jackson is to any usf composition.

Its not like ideas weren't given to lessen that burden from Jackson's shoulders and It's not like Jackson is the only reliable counter to OKW Pz4 at the moment :gimpy:



Adding riflemen field defenses AND making fireup useable will absolutely make it more popular. I don't expect it to make rifle company viable (honestly, I myself was hoping to get in some more drastic changes to the doctrine), but it'll make it more cohesive as a doctrine and less of a pain to use for those players that simply want to use it. It would take a lot to make it competitive against heavy cavalry, armor, mechanized, airborne, recon, or infantry (perhaps even urban assault).


I over reacted after reading on the word "more popular". For sure I'll give it a try, I have played with it a lot in the past and probably be one of few defending it. But making it more popular, let me have a doubt about it.
14 Aug 2019, 20:59 PM
#8
avatar of Mr.Flush

Posts: 444

Looks like I'm playing Soviets again in team games. Poor usf.
14 Aug 2019, 21:10 PM
#9
avatar of A. Soldier
Social Media Manager Badge

Posts: 2687 | Subs: 2


We were also considering 150 fuel for the jackson nerf, but wanted to be conservative give the other changes to usf's late game and just how essential the jackson is to any usf composition.

Adding riflemen field defenses AND making fireup useable will absolutely make it more popular. I don't expect it to make rifle company viable (honestly, I myself was hoping to get in some more drastic changes to the doctrine), but it'll make it more cohesive as a doctrine and less of a pain to use for those players that simply want to use it. It would take a lot to make it competitive against heavy cavalry, armor, mechanized, airborne, recon, or infantry (perhaps even urban assault).


I think flares being combined with sprint made more sense and the flamers for RE (which doesn't make sense given the theme of the commander) being replaced by something else that actually benefits Rifles more like the LMG weapon rack unlock, or something else entirely, that's just my idea/opinion.
14 Aug 2019, 21:12 PM
#10
avatar of RifleMan

Posts: 35

Looks like I'm playing Soviets again in team games. Poor usf.

This. I think the patch nerfed USF more than it got buffed, especially the things that got nerfed were more common in team games, where USF is already lackluster. Gonna stick to playing SOV/UKF in team games
14 Aug 2019, 21:16 PM
#11
avatar of A. Soldier
Social Media Manager Badge

Posts: 2687 | Subs: 2


This. I think the patch nerfed USF more than it got buffed, especially the things that got nerfed were more common in team games, where USF is already lackluster. Gonna stick to playing SOV/UKF


USF will not be viable in team games unless they get a team game oriented commander.

They would have probably if I wasn't dumb enough to suggest my Airborne Glider Company instead of this:



Heavy Armor dictates team games and is what the USF is severely lacking.
14 Aug 2019, 21:33 PM
#12
avatar of Mr.Flush

Posts: 444


This. I think the patch nerfed USF more than it got buffed, especially the things that got nerfed were more common in team games, where USF is already lackluster. Gonna stick to playing SOV/UKF in team games


Petty much my thoughts. I'm not going to get forced to play rock, paper, sciccors with someone who is going to pick God everytime. Had a fun time playing USF after the tech rework.

14 Aug 2019, 21:36 PM
#13
avatar of Stug life

Posts: 3895


This. I think the patch nerfed USF more than it got buffed, especially the things that got nerfed were more common in team games, where USF is already lackluster. Gonna stick to playing SOV/UKF in team games
yea not gonna touch any other faction, im gonna enjoy the custom games ukf vs soviet
14 Aug 2019, 21:37 PM
#14
avatar of Mr.Flush

Posts: 444

Not saying USf is going to suck vs nerfed okw start, but playing usf vs ostheer is not going to be fun with nerfed indirect fire.
14 Aug 2019, 21:42 PM
#15
avatar of Doomlord52

Posts: 501

Jackson
+5 Fuel isn't going to change much. The issue is the incredibly mobile power this unit brings to the table. It could be balance via cost changes, but +5 fuel isn't enough if we're keeping the power where it is. A more interesting approach would be to buff other AT options, so the jackson can be nerfed while also not being the only late-game AT option for USF.

M8 Scott
While the auto-fire RoF is nice, now it's just going to OHK units slightly slower. It's a step in the right direction, but an actual damage nerf would've fit better, as it would've smoothed out the current damage output. That, or just copy+paste the Pak Howitzer change.

It would've also been nice to see a buff to the 57mm ATG, as well as adjustments to the .50cal.
14 Aug 2019, 21:56 PM
#16
avatar of thekingsown10

Posts: 137

Not saying USf is going to suck vs nerfed okw start, but playing usf vs ostheer is not going to be fun with nerfed indirect fire.


It is precisely indirect auto fire that was hugely overperforming with literally no input from the user for a massive amount of kills vs a static faction like Wehr.
14 Aug 2019, 22:20 PM
#17
avatar of Mr.Flush

Posts: 444



It is precisely indirect auto fire that was hugely overperforming with literally no input from the user for a massive amount of kills vs a static faction like Wehr.


Wehr is cancer when allowed to play static. If no input is a problem then allow usf to build snipers, they take skill to use. Soviets have snipers and that is why I'm switching factions if these changes make it through. If they buff barrages and nerf aa on the pak Howie, I may reconsider.

14 Aug 2019, 22:45 PM
#18
avatar of Mazianni

Posts: 418

This all reminds me, can we PLEASE finally fix the 0.5 retreat RA on the M2HB? Do I really need to make a thread in the bugs section on it?
14 Aug 2019, 23:06 PM
#19
avatar of blancat

Posts: 554



USF will not be viable in team games unless they get a team game oriented commander.

They would have probably if I wasn't dumb enough to suggest my Airborne Glider Company instead of this:



Heavy Armor dictates team games and is what the USF is severely lacking.



too many armor vehicles

u makes heavy cavalry more worse
15 Aug 2019, 05:17 AM
#20
avatar of PanzerFutz

Posts: 95

While I like Riflemen Field Defenses, a Sniper would be better. He's the ultimate Rifleman!

A Pathfinder model could be used - just changes the stats.
PAGES (25)down
1 user is browsing this thread: 1 guest
World Champ '19 - Semi-finals

Ladders Top 10

  • #
    Steam Alias
    W
    L
    %
    Streak
Data provided by Relic Relic Entertainment

Replay highlight

VS
  • Soviets flag Lucky - Cable Sup-port
  • Soviets flag T.R. Olvadi
  • Ostheer flag ZodiAK!
  • Oberkommando West flag CrossFire
uploaded by Olvadi

Board Info

226 users are online: 12 members and 214 guests
dasheepeh, RollingStone, Musti, Siphon X., Cresc, oootto92, Farlion, blvckdream, porkloin, MMX, SneakEye, VonIvan
318 posts in the last 24h
1659 posts in the last week
7433 posts in the last month
Registered members: 64429
Welcome our newest member, Saltaq9
Most online: 918 users on 27 Oct 2019, 01:03 AM