|
I agree with some of the people on here that heavies are too efficient. It just makes sense in a game as dependent on multi-tasking, that heavies are preferred because they are singular powerful units that fulfill the job of multiple cheaper units.
In terms of changing them, why not make them assault units that have to be put at risk to get the most out of them? Instead of nerfing their weapons and armor, why not reduce their range to that of a normal tank (40), and reduce their speed to make them lumbering killing machines. Lowering their speed will make it easier to isolate and flank them, as well as make them more vulnerable when charging recklessly into enemy lines with no plan and no support.
I believe changes like this will make heavies feel a little more unique gameplay-wise, as well as letting them stay powerful against infantry and armor that get into their range. It will also allow their natural counters (TDs and ATGs) to have more of a chance standing up to them, and be a bit more deadly It may even allow for a slight nerfing of the TD meta that has partially led to the demise of mediums in game. |
|
Add tank traps to the mine laying ability, fix the cluster bombs, and I think the doctrine will be fine. It's not meant to be a normal doctrine, more of an ultra specialized one to fulfill a specific purpose.
I personally would rather see the B4 in the doctrine than the ML-20 for thematic purposes, but it is not really necessary. |
|
This bug would explain so much regarding the relative strength of the P47 run. It will be interesting to see how the rocket strafe performs as it should have always performed with a bugfix. |
|
M20 is just not worth it anymore. Without a zook, you run into the very real chance that you will not have AT when the enemy armored vehicle arrives. It just makes more sense to wait a little and buy a stuart which is in the same tier.
That being said, old M20 really was quite oppressive with stuart and free LT in same tier. I don't know how to bring it back as a viable choice short of a tech revamp. |
|
I have been playing a bit of rifle co, and I think the main issues with the doctrine come down to the RE flamers and the e8s.
RE flamers just make no sense thematically, and should really be changed to some sort of weapon slot taking upgrade for riflemen. I would recommend a veteran sergeant upgrade which changes the squad to "veteran riflemen," who could come with a single thompson, and either faster vet gain, sight increase, etc., or a mix.
Hell, "Veteran Riflemen" Could become a 2CP elite infantry unit with a Thompson model, RA buffs, and 2 additional weapon slots. There are plenty of options for how to design this. IIRC, veteran riflemen from the old days were a unique unit with unique voicelines? Would be a shame for something like that to go to waste.
E8 is a bit tougher. Besides its health maybe being set to 800 a-la T34/85, I really don't know what to do with it. I see two options.
-If it is meant to be a premium medium, maybe keep it at 720 hp but give it higher speed and acceleration to emphasize it as a flanking/ diving tank. I also think giving it wp shells might not be a terrible idea.
-If it is meant to be a support unit for riflemen, maybe turn it into a command tank. Give the e8 a cap of 1, and allow it to provide bonuses to nearby infantry. An ability of some kind to reinforce its role would be good as well.
Other than those options, I don't want to see buffs to the main gun, because it really shouldn't be competing with the jackson or sherman 75 IMO. The .50 upgrade should be cheapened to be in line with the upgrade on other Shermans too. I don't recall the exact numbers, but apparently it costs more. |
In 1v1 Everybody seems to be giving up on penals myself included 
Penals are a double-edged sword for soviets early game. The loss in map pressure is huge compared to conscripts, I think lots of people are starting to realize the map control is more important. Going cons also lets you build T2 when teching so you can get an ATG whenever you need it as well. |
Vet 0, 5 models Volks, open ground.
After test on suppression mechanics i believe that the problem starts to arise once units gets increased RA and the map is cluttered with yellow cover. Some MGs are still able to perform as MGs and other simple get overwhelmed by firepower + lightcover + RA vet and just 2 squads "blobbing" frontally.
TBH i consider the mechanic FUBAR. It's my personal conspiracy theory, but by making units have armor instead of RA, made the whole mechanic work from start of the game to the end of it.
You know, it may be a fix to make MGs ignore yellow cover. Is that possible? I doubt hiding behind a bush or in a small crater would make you feel much less suppressed than being in the open. I believe the maxim and vickers both rely heavily on accuracy to apply their suppression IIRC. |
|
IS aren't the real issue with brits early/ midgame. That would be the lackluster performance of the vickers HMG.
For a faction that is supposed to be defensive and reliant on units supporting their mainline infantry, the vickers is just not worth its price. I have lost track of the times volks have just crawled up and flame naded my vickers while under suppressing fire.
And for all those who try to claim that the vickers is fine because of its damage output: damage output is not why you buy an HMG; it would be like touting an ATG's anti-infantry firepower. |
|
It's a bug caused by the decrewed vehicle moving after the decrew. Sometimes it is more obvious, but sometimes it just rotates slightly. Problem is, a decrewed vehicle is a neutral entity, and crushes everything near it.
This bug has been in since day 1 of USF. I doubt it is ever going to get fixed. |
|
Much needed nerf. Bazooka made sense when the M20 cost 340mp, not so much nowadays.
Also OP, look at the bright side, M20 crews finally get the Thompson from Elite Vehicle crews! Also, if you are concerned about a luchs or 222, why don't you build a zooka on your LT or, I dunno, a STUART. |
1
comm_ash ★
CcArtS03
comm_ash
Relic Entertainment
