Profile of Esxile

Dear Esxile

If in your opinion Ostheer tech progress gives them an advantage over other faction, pls elaborate and share your opinion.

If on the other hand you have an issue with something I do, pls contact via since what I do or do not do is not the topic of this thread.

Dear Vipper, why are you so wrong?

Ostheer doesn't pay for their upgrade, this is balanced, and nobody complains about it, that's all.

I leave insults, theory crafting and the obsession to be proven right to user Katitof.

Well that's not Katikof who's making a thread of anything because you say something he didn't like.

If getting T2, T3 or T4 was free from requiring BP, sure, BP would serve as sidegrades. Maybe someone who participated on pre-alpha might have some insight on it.

Exactly, one could argue that WM T1 cost is divided in two part, 100/10 fuel for the building and access to all units in it and 200/40 fuel to complete it.

The aim of this thread is to clarify so issues regarding Ostheer tech a subject that come up in other threads.

Contrary to what some people claim Ostheer Lmg, P.Faust, Bundles grenades and Rifle grenades have an actual tech cost since a player needs to invest their resources in order gain access to these items.

The requirement are:
P. Faust
the existence of T1 or T2 building

LMG 42
Grenadiers research BP1
Osttruppen research of BP3

Bundle grenades
Research BP1

Rifle-grenades
Research BP1

(edited to add more information for the purpose of this thread.)

There is not anymore tech cost for those upgrades, I know it butthurt you to admit it but it is like that... Battle phase upgrades act more as timers to slow down Oshteer's access to their upgrades.

Are you saying occasionally using a 30 munition ability that lasts 30 seconds in late game where its regularly needed is budget breaking? Assuming your unit preservation is decent you already have your BAR / lmg blob well before later stages of the game where US has only a few good munition sinks like the Thunderbolts which is commander specific. Against mediums without armor skirts normal rounds will do well enough imo.

Also I have no idea how OKW survived with their 35 munition fausts while having to upgrade their inf, use flame nades and bundles to maintain good field presence and plant mines in that case.







First of all you seem to have a lack of playing hours in Skyrim or you never talked to a City Guard

2nd I pick an M1 over a raketen because i want an AT gun that doesn't get instagibbed by a random medium tank shell and that doesn't take ages to fire on a target that is near the edge of the cone of fire. (& while not having to be in harms way while doing so is a plus)

3rd I agree that USF has few AT options and maybe keeping Wolverine in Armor Company is not worth it anymore since it seems to be extinct after December for understandable reasons. That has lead to most of the burden being put on the Jackson which seems to be at least partially the same problem Sturmpioneers have (having to deal with repairs, mining, sweeping, field fortifications, combat, AT and garrison clearing) but unlike Sturms actually overperforming versus certain targets.

4th: I'd say the biggest problem with Jackson is that it has no real weaknesses or downsides. Flanking it amounts to very little because of its mobility and turret traverse speed. Outranging it relies on doctrinal heavy TDs (which now have worse synergy with the rest of the army imo because for example if you have a JT and a panther as a team the panther still needs 3 shots to kill a medium after a JT has fired at it so the nerf in a vacuum seemed a lot better than in practice where heavy TDs work in tandem with other units.)

Dives against Jacksons are also risky because if you miss a few shots the Jackson might very well chase you on retreat with its good speed. I'd go as far and say even mirroring its stats with a Firefly which has clear disadvantages might be more beneficial to the gameplay than the current Jackson meta.

GeneralsGentlemen mentioned one of their frustrations with snipers in one of their shoutcast which I agree 100%. Your opponent will not lose a sniper due to you outplaying him/her. The sniper gets killed when the user makes a mistake or gets greedy, not because you outsmarted your opponent. (assuming decent sniper micro naturally) I think the same can be said for Jackson. The sniper argument seemed pretty valid in last weekends King Of The Hill with Luvnests amazing sniper use and ridiculous kill counts vs VonIvan.


And finally I agree on the TDs dominating most gamemodes over other armor types. Elephants and JTs were at least doctrine specific so you wouldn't see them every single game but any US player in their right mind will build a Jackson or two or three at some point in the game.

Nop I have never put my hand on Skyrim. Sorry for the lack of pop culture

Raketens have their own weaknesses as the M1, I agree with you. The problem with the M1 is unlike the 35mu pfaust, you are not sure that it will do good. Using Pfaust in the right circunstancie guarantee you a engine damage, your 35 munitions are spend for that. M1 Tugshot ability does not guarantee you any penetration hit vs heavies, even OKW Pz4 can deflect those shots. As I said, vs USF I would also pick any M1 left on the battlefield, but in case I have to fight big cats, I would first consider to pick a Pak, a UKF ATG and raketen for their camo ability and then a M1.

Difference between Jackson and Sniper is the manpower bleed sniper does.
A Jackson that hit you twice from max distance, reverse engine and repair.
A Jackson can be engine damaged, sniper not. I would agree with you to compare Sniper and Jackson if Relic decided to remove the retreat button from the Sniper.

At the end, what I say is simple, Or the Jackson feel OP or it feel UP as it need to fill two gaps in USF design. Or it fill only one gap and is UP vs the other, or it fill both gaps but be OP on one of them if not both simply because of the nature of those gap.