Dont you think it will make battlegroup even more useless in 1v1\2v2 if you dont need IGs badly. In 3v3 and on somemakes Battlegroup can give you forward reinforcements, while on some 2v2 and on all 1v1 maps, you can unitilise neither forward reinforcement or retreat point.
Heals from HQ and battlegroup should be different. With battlegroup being supperior.
Then make it 2 medics instead of 3 and make it a bit cheaper than soviet medics.
Med truck still has attraction IMO in how fast you can field it, you get your snare up and stgs a bit sooner, could make unlocking it give a discount on stgs or something as well to highlight it as an infantry focused building instead of an armored one.
Regardless of what happens in am absolutely and entirely against AOE heals. It's shit design and rewards blob retreats which should be punished with long heals not rewarded with it taking the same time if it's 1 squad of 6 |
|
No aoe heals please no more shitty blob food abilities. Just give them base medics like the soviet at a similar cost. If players want to use the forward retreat they will need to build medics at that truck as well. |
Vet 3 +25% Mk. II throwing distance
Plus 7% bulletin.
Its very close
My math puts that at roughly a 5 range increase putting it at 20 or so range which is still only, 66% of the 30 cited
For perspective that's how far allied TDs out range a Panther by and the Panther in turn out ranges normal tanks.
Going from half the range to 2/3 isn't what I would call very close. |
The wire is a moot point because in the early game where wire is most often placed, it's to do so to deny cover to infantry and build speed is more important then its ability to resist some light vehicles.
I'm ambivalent on the mines, I wouldn't say the UKF/SOV/OKW mines are objectively superior to ostheers mine lineup though USF does struggle here. Either way, often it's more important to have the squads nearby TO lay the mines, and that's where having more cheaper expendable squads is better.
Finally yes I do think that they are worth 300 manpower given their capabilities. But they have too many critical capabilities. Thats the issue. Something is needed to lighten the load because the mechanized HQ engineers don't cut it.
I think the wire is cool, but it could probably go to fortifications and have regular wire instead granted if your sturms are laying wire in the early stages they are usually going to waste. I have however had decent success in using it to corral flame cars into a mines. Niche as niche gets but Ill concede.
The mines bit against, I wouldn't say one mine or the other(s) is better one way or another, just that the quick and dirty works well for okw. And given the amount of muni okw burns not having 3 mine layers isn't really an issue imo.
As for the many critical abilities but that is indeed the point of them. And while the repair drones don't replace proper repairs entirely due to inflexibility they can lessen the burden considerably if your sturms are busy can let you out off an immediate replacement of sturms should they go the way of the dodo. |
|
Because that's how balance works. We know you really don't want to hear this but just having a unit shouldn't mean you can be bad and still win. If a medium tank Flanks or otherwise gets the jump on LITERALLY any other TD in the game the tank will be able to beat the TD |
In which situation SU player will build SU-76? Right, after early lost of t-70, when you play T1. That means only what i said before - +165 fuel handicap for axis only to achieve T4 (SU-76+T4). Who in sane would build SU-76 to counter P4, while much better do it or by zis or by 2 baby-at guns? If it was good tactic (build su-76 to counter P4) we at least saw such movements on tournaments at first then on pro-games and finally in SU meta. Or i miss something?
yes, you are missing something. Namely that changes applied will change nothing at all about the meta or builds. If the T70 isn't a no brainer in every situation which I soon expect it to be, perhaps a player might build a su76 in lieu of a t70 to leverage an infantry advantage afforded by earlier 7 man and T1 penals
As for the zis and m42 AT gun, if I don't back tech or have a specific doctrine both of those will be tricky. I'm not trying to make the su76 the new meta, just halfway viable.
Every lost SU-76 will also give for axis +75 fuel free time. While Axis player could play on his T3 against you, for you it will be road to dead end. You need T4 to get your T-34, su-85 and heavies.
there's your problem... You are assuming not only that the unit is a write off but also that it isn't going to generate any value in the meantime. In the meantime the su76 actually can with light support counter the entirety of ost t3 and if granted smoke even support against other threats. You are not looking at this with clear eyes just finding cause to support it as the failure you have already decided it is.
How this correspond to T1 oppening? While it good suggestion, but i think IMHO it will increase power of SU more than now. T-70 is strong, but 7-th cons are stronger in my opinion. And i even don't say about such thing that cons are T2 openning, for T2 openning you don't need SU-76, you have zis.
if you already have t2 odds are you won't need the su76... That's OK. I'm not exactly sure what you are arguing here... Not every unit needs to the go to every single scenario especially not when there is split teching.
No smoke for regular infantry. Or you want to see how penals smoking way to OKW bases?
and here you have lost me entirely... Seriously what the fuck are you talking about? I didn't suggest penals getting smoke I suggested the su76 getting smoke. Something they can already have readily if they side tech to t2 and get a mortar for cheaper if they so choose.
No, that's the problem. The 'transition to heavy AT' just doesn't work. These units are too expensive and too specialised to afford being rendered redundant like that. You just go straight for that heavy AT.
To make light TDs work they need a huge mobility advantage over anti-tank guns, and an equally huge tech barrier between them and the proper tank destroyer. The SU-76 has neither.
I disagree. Heavy AT is expensive because how else do you gate a unit that counters everything. Remeber what the last solution to the Jackson countering every bit of armour from kuble to KT was? A price increase. If HEAVY AT doesn't also counter literally everything up to and including heavy tanks with extreme efficiency they have no need to be so expensive. If there is an alternative then they don't need to counter everything up to and including heavy Armour. All allied TDs got price increases over the years as they were made more potent and more all in one but if they can start actually being designed as more specialist then we can have a price decrease to accompany them.
|
I don't see how sturmpios do their jobs better. PROPORTIONALY sturmpios do not repair faster then their equivalents(they do not repair 60% faster both having sweepers). Sturmpios do not lay mines faster, and the OKW heavy wire ends up getting laid SLOWER then standard wire-which is quite obnoxious in the early game.
I just don't see how it can be said that other factions are worse off in this area. One thing that oft gets brought up is that you can't have sweepers everywhere which is why mines are useful even though you just need a sweeper to spot them. Well in this regard 3 squads can cover far more ground then 2.
They don't repair 60% faster but they do repair much faster. And getting the sweepers without impacting their ability to fight while also buffing their repair speed is amazing. While they don't lay wire faster they do lay better wire, and they don't lay mines faster but they do lay the same amazing mines the soviet allies do (in contrast to the specialized mines of the Ostheer. Not to say those are bad but the cheap mines are more flexible, which given the limited nature of sturms I'd call a boon) not to mention their shock value at the start of the match. basicly while more expensive from the word go the generate more value and have more value to generate. They earn their cost at the start with combat and earn their upkeep through engineering doing both very well |
The WC51 currently has:
- self repair with crew
- a decent HMG that is better than the kubel, can definetly 1v1 most german starting infantry w/o snares
- Can capture points(w/o infantry inside it)
- Mark target
- Arty barrage that can wreck pretty much anything
- for 200 mp available from the start, cheaper than the kubel(slightly)
And this is somehow no issue? Atleast the crew needs to go.
You are wasting your time with codguy mate. Usf could have a nuke that is automatically unlocked after 30 min of game time, destroying the enemy base and he'd make a thread saying it comes too late because usf is the weakest faction in every single way |
If, hypothetically, we could completely redesign USF with a full dev team, I would probably:
- turn the regular M4 into an AI specialist similar to the Ostwind/Centaur (basically lower its cost and tone down its AT);
- add the 76mm or the M10 as a stock vehicle to fight mediums and to some extend heavier armor;
- redesign the Jackson to be less effective against small and medium targets and more effective against heavy tanks (like 200 damage, slower ROF and lower accuracy);
- add the Jumbo to replace the 76mm/M10 in doctrines.
I'll take it. |
|
I really wish people would stop using the surrounding commander, especially one that is regarded as all as OP.
. Furthermore I'm not sure the argument of "it's better if you stack other abilities and units on top of it" really means it's better... It's like saying ost pios are better because they will have an mg42 behind them and doctrinaly can sprint so they get in and out of combat easier!
If you are comparing the units compare the units if you need to bring other units and abilities into the fold you are not comparing the units you are stacking the comparison |
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
