My point was and is that sentence:
"A good puma micro and your t-34 is useless because you will get penetrated frontally no matter what and even outranged?"
I actually wrong because the probability of a Puma hitting and penetrating a T-34/76 is simply too low to be characterized "no matter what" which indicates certainty (or very high probability).
[..]When someone uses the term "no matter what" it indicates a certainty (100%) or very high probability (above 90%). This hardly the case.
Puma DOES hardcounter T34 for the sole fact that it can shoot, keep the distance and SEE it without support of any other unit.
Everything above that is semantics.
To help you two, and to return this discussion back to the topic, allow me to constructively contribute to breaking this impasse about English sentence structure. I am trying to help as this appears to be vital to you two, and I'd like to increase the talk around the subject topic, and to reduce discussing the English grammar. This information is supported by my extensive knowledge provided by my English mother tongue.
<english-man> Tactical Imouto's sentence is grammatically correct; it is written as a declarative sentence (future continuous tense). The user makes the statement that the Puma will (in the future) penetrate the T34. This is asserted to be true - the puma will definitely penetrate the t34. Nevertheless, the range, or multiple hits, despite anything, this condition of penetrating will always be met at some point in the future - no matter what, this condition will be true. Tactical Imouto does not talk about predicting the chance of penetration or expected shots needed. If the sentence were written in Present Simple Tense (e.g. The puma penetrates the T34, no matter what), then it'd be wrong (itc, sentence says that condition is always met). Can explain more English Grammar over PM, if interested.</english-man>
I hope this helps to clarify, so we can all return to discussing T4
I don't like the Counter Barrage ability, no micro counter barraging shouldn't be in the game imo.
I don't like it either. It does not look great on paper, but it is this ability that lets LEfh trumps over Allied artillery easily.
Yes a constant healing aura is bad and promotes blobbing. If heals stays it should be a timed ability with or without cost.
The way healing is implemented in live game, and as demonstrated in many games (e.g. GCS), that's factually wrong. To keep it simple and short: Healing encourages players having a central point to return to after engagements and
benefits being immobile and
out of combat for a while. Although it supports the movement of troops to stop enemies besieging the healing point, it drives players to quickly adapt their tactics to bypass enemies learning about its position whilst being at their weakest standpoint. But healing promotes a defensive turtling playstyle, as players are enticed to stay close to a safe sector for quick healing purposes. If players use healing to promote blobbing, the game punishes them. Thus, contrary to auras, healing does equal blobbing. The Commissar should follow a similar healing design methodology to achieve similar play-style.
Tank Mode: 9 (Currently in the Revamp)
Siege Mode: 10/12 (Same numbers as live)
Thanks for clarifying and bringing a swift end to this. I just wanted to say keep on the awesome work. Big ups for making the KV2 viable again!
I agree with you.
If I am stuck with having to use this commander (Pershing is always a better choice), then I just buy one PFinder, and then I put them in camo+not shooting somewhere close to an important point on the map, not too close to main pathfinding routes. That's all I believe they're good for; Reconnaissance. They used to work perfectly hand in hand with Jackson in older versions of the game. But it is mostly the commander that kinda sucks.
Yeah but LoopDloop has right. It's a big diffrent when all your models need to be behind a cover to move in camouflage or to have only 1 model behind a cover. That's a huge diffrence in a gameplay. Ambush Camouflage and Stormtroopers are in diffrent commanders so i don't see argument about overlaping so relevant.
I agree with the rest said about stormtroopers.
Btw shouldn;t the 5th model upgrade shouldn't include a stormtroopers?
Both you and LoopDloop are wholly right. The camouflage is the
main reason why Stormtroopers are superior and preferred ; they are a clear and definite choice for opening gameplay scenarios. I approve with you too, there's absolutely no overlap to anyone who used PG and Stormtroopers in-game. Theoretically, people may look blindly at the stats and conclude they're similar units, but they feel different, play different and they are distinct unique in-game units.
I'd increase the close range DPS; that's what I feel is missing on the STs. Some bigger close range punch. I'm starting to love STs; they should just make STs non-doctorinal instead of PGs.
A simply case of the grass is greener on the other side of the fence.
ML-20 and LeFH have the same scatter values.
ML-20 does more damage and has slightly better AOE.
Soviet Stationary Artillery is not limited to ML-20, and as OP says there are others e.g. B4. Do you mind including the data for that too? You also omit the difference in shells shot per barrage for ML-20 and LeFH (LeFH barrages more, thus more chance to hit target). Veterancy is different too (e.g. LeFH Counter barrage is incredibly useful). The grass is greener because you paint it greener.
There was a time when ML-20 was the worst choice to build, and B4 was the go-to artillery. It was really powerful. I am sure veterans remember shooting down KTs with it.
So the problem doesn't exist in live because both the unit and its commander are absolute rubbish and it doesn't exist in the mod, because it has been fixed. So why is that even discussed, especially in a thread aimed at something completely different?
I'm glad that the topic is over. It should be OK to continue talking snares now.
To answer your question: People started to go off topic by wrongly point out that Valentines are the best crushers. When in fact, these people clearly weren't playing the game at all because the unit simply can't do that despite telling others to play the mod to try the valentine. Then people still try to shoehorn that Valentine is OP in a thread about snares. ow.
On topic wise, I think there are too many snares in the game as it currently stands in the mod. I understand UKF needed a snare, and OKW got a snare a while back too, and that Penals needed some AT and snares. Consequently, there's doctorinal units with snares everywhere which may be too much. Perhaps a change, as recommended by the OP, to have snares have less impact on frontal hits, may change my perception.
Maybe the brits player should pick the right commander: Commando Regiment
which had a winchange from 50%!
so its totally ok to lose, when u pick not the meta commander.
deal with it.
The data set shows that out of 45 games, Commando Regiment was picked 8 times (18%), and it won 4 of their games (50%); it's ridiculously low. You could take the stats and do a t-test to find out which UKF commander in the GCS is considered as meta, but anyone can conclude by merely looking at the UKF meta tables that no UKF commanders stands out as overall winner (as opposed to Soviets Guard Rifle/Guard Motor for instance).
So..... ost is a benchmark.
Soviets and OKW line up to it as proven during CGS2.
USF and UKF are below by a wide margin as proven during CGS2.
And your solution is to nerf 3 in line and balance factions instead of fix 2, which are lacking in obvious places?
Where is a logic in that?
I agree that it is the constant nerfing of UKF that definitely killed the faction. I don't believe that nerfing other factions (in this case, Volks) down to UKF levels is the solution - it's UKF that needs buffing.
There's no blanket solution for balancing. I bet that a neural network could solve this whole balancing issue by feeding it the whole game balance in numbers as input, but it'd come with a bland output of a perfectly balanced solution that is no fun to play. It is the little imperfections and asymmetry that makes the game stand out.
I also think it is a bit silly logic to propose to nerf 3 factions in line to solve the problems of one..