WARNING: I know this is very debatable topic.
And I do believe OKW needs some buff on late-game volks(with possibly buff on 4-5 vet maybe) to compensate it's low WR in 1v1, but I just wanted to give it a shot.
Despite low WR of OKW in 1v1, it is still dominating faction in 3v3/4v4.
So this suggestion is to minimize impact on OKW in 1v1/2v2, yet somehow make it weak in 3v3/4v4 (or at least delay it's timing).
Delaying the timing would only make the design problems with it worse. It's been buffed because the fuel cost is so high that it badly delays getting the first tank out. There is a lot of risk in getting one. Making matters worse, it's an all or nothing barrage, so it has been made to hit really hard when it does. The problem with that is in the larger team games, they become a target-rich environment for the Walking Stuka. With the concentration of units, it becomes impossible to dodge or reposition every time you hear the sound. Mass retreating just leads to losses, so you start guessing where the rockets are going to hit. Guess wrong once or twice, lose your vetted infantry and you'll lose the game.
It'd really be a lot better if the fuel cost was lowered and the AOE was made larger to make it less all-or-nothing, but the OHK radius was dramatically shrunk so that it didn't wipe complete squads. |
If I wanted to stop unwanted target. I would put hold fire on. I don't need both firemode to disable tracking.
The MG is really a who cares?
If you're just shooting up infantry while waiting to reload. Don't Hold Fire.
If you need to disable tracking, so that you can line up an AVRE shot. Why do you even care about the MG?
I just said why the balance team did it. I don't use the unit so don't really care about the change. You'd need one of them to reply. |
Churchill AVRE
The following change will stop unwanted movement of the AVRE's turret when the unit is not on hold-fire.
AVRE's turret will no longer rotate to targets unless given an attack command. MGs will still engage targets within range when the unit is not on hold-fire.
-
I mean. If you're going to shoot and you don't want to have unwanted turret movement just go on hold fire.
If you need your MG shooting while your reloading, just turn hold fire off.
I liked having the AVRE before where it's able to continue tracking enemy once I clicked the enemy. MG start tracking then I can fire my cannon.
It's a minor QOL improvement as it would often start tracking some unwanted target and then take forever to rotate back. The only way to get around that was to put it on hold fire but then the MG's wouldn't fire. |
Why do you ask off topic questions? Is it really that necessary to go into whataboutism to dismiss someone's opinion?
+1
So you two want only opinions that agree with you on this thread? The comparison to the LEFH isn't off topic, as it is the most similar Axis unit. You've had about 3-4 years where you didn't have to worry about Soviet howitzers at all, so now it's the end of COH because you actually have to look at someone's loadout and think about picking a counter? |
just used a lefh vs 2 b4s and i killed them both. guy made another he end up having 35 inf kills 1 tank kill i had 97 inf kills and 7 vehicle kills. lefh seems more reliable. the b4 kill a squad or 2 but i killed stuff every barrage and base killing from far was amazing with lefh
The LEFH rolls the RNG dice 10x per barrage versus 8x for the ML20 with similar AOE or 3x for the B4 with slightly larger AOE. The scatter angle and distance is about the same for all three, so of course the LEFH is more "reliable" when it comes to kills. I've tried the new B4 in two matches. The best I've done so far is roughly half the kills that I've done with a LEFH, and that was on Port of Hamburg against a couple players who stacked their trucks on top of each other. |
Saw this coming from a mile away. Possibly another JLI scenario from the balance team. Will wait and see how it plays out though.
While on the topic of the B4 it should have simply been a Pak 43 clone with Vet 1 ability to allow it to shoot its 1 big shot occasionally (with an ammo cost of course)
Instead they made it into an ML-20 that doesn't tickle things. This is what happens then they don't listen to feedback and instead push their own agendas from their own little group.
There were threads with multiple hundreds of posts requesting that they do something about the B4, including a long one where a lot of people wanted it in Tank Hunters. This wasn't an agenda from their "own little group", it was what a bunch of people were lobbying them to do. It wasn't any different when a group of people lobbied them to make the Panzerfusiliers CP0 and buff them to be similar to volks.
As for it "overshadowing" the ML20, the ML20 is "overshadowed" hard by the LEFH. The AOE seems about the same but the fewer shells means the LEFH vets faster and normally wins an arty duel. I don't think this patch will change that, other than eliminating the auto-win from counter battery. |
Yeah they managed to buff a unit they were trying to nerf. FailFish
No, they were trying to change it into something that deals more reliable damage. It used to be so unreliable that it was good only for meme games. |
Why?
Six man Con squads are easily wiped. Even 7 man sometimes get wiped to a Walking Stuka. These upgrades shouldn't be exclusive. If a Con pick up any other weapon then I could see it blocking the MR upgrade but PTRS doesn't play the same. The PPSH upgrade would make 7 man Cons too powerful, but 7 man PTRS would be only slightly more usable. |
That's only for one month though.
For march, the numbers for Top 200 2v2 are UKF 40.3 Soviets 49.2 USF 48.7
For april, UKF 41.9 Soviets 50 USF 49.
The numbers at the top have a tendency to even out because of the higher levels of skill difference. Usually, top10 players are much better than top 30, 30 better than 100, etc. A top 30 UKF player is not going to have much of a problem beating a top 100. This is true more in 1v1's than other modes, but still is a factor in the other modes.
Several patches ago, I'd bet that the UKF win rate was at least 50%. The balance team nerfed the accuracy of the Firefly and Commet, as well as inflating the pop cap of the UKF tanks badly (Churchill included). They nerfed it to the point that the UKF has no resiliency in a 4v4 slugfest. They gave a tiny bit back on emplacements, but emplacements aren't a path to victory against good players. |
Ah right. Supposedly in that situation, wire blocking both exits will result in passable wire (haven't tried it out). But as you've seen, if the V is far enough from the door then it doesn't register. Some will prob say that you should have spotted it being both exits blocked off, pretty unpleasant trick either way.
Making a Stormtrooper petting zoo isn't any more unpleasant than Close the Pocket. |
Relic Entertainment
