Did you just create a thread saying people are complaining about the 50 cal (which they aren't) so you could say mg42 op?
Edit: I went back just to be sure and the most recent mg thread was 1 month, 7 pages ago complaining about the mg42 started by..... You. |
Their early performance is fine. Combat Engineers got Conscript Mosins last patch, giving them around 10% to 20% more dps at mid/long range.
They're actually slightly better per model than Conscripts before vet 1 (42,5 purchase cost with 1 RA versus 40 purchase cost with 1,09 RA). This allows making multiple Engineers in the early game without too many drawbacks (Brosras gets up to 3, for example). This is also why you shouldn't merge cons outside of combat situations.
A better change would be to give both Combat Engineers and Pioneers lower RA at vet 3, which Sappers/RET's/Sturms already get. Then they can keep some combat relevance later on.
I wouldn't say CE are terribly good at any point except with a flamethrower as they really are not a threat to anything, even weapon crews. And I'm not sure that a vet locked durability buff on a unit that quite frankly has no business being in the front anyways wouldn't change much (not that armour would really either but I'd tie it to tech instead of vet)
Idk CE are so entirely underwhelming at every point and in every scenario, knowing you NEED to have them eating up pop while really bringing nothing to the match is kinda depressing. Especially with them being a starter unit and needing to shell out 160mp off the cuff for infantry and then running into things like sturms in your first engagement. But that's kinda factional whining at that point I guess |
*reminds about the fact its a good for nothing unit, not having 42 sight range, importent in combat and with its key utility nerfed out of the game
I think it would be neat if they got a small amount of armour. As one of the only 4 man Soviet squads and undeniably the worst combat unit in the game I think a wee bit of staying power would be really nice to offset the lack of anything of value they bring. Would help justify their reinforcement being higher than cons and promote actually reinforcing them vs merging too.
Nothing Huge but maybe like 1.1 just as a weee bump |
Would cooldown be better than increased accuracy? It wouldn't effect shocks quite as much but would still help penals a lot and cons correct? Durability is a route too but could certainly over stack with shocks. |
You are forgetting that each tank belongs to a different army and each represents that army's doctrine. The Pershing while quicker is the squishiest heavy tank of all, the is-2 is a very strong tank, but shoots slower and is supported by economy units(and is also only in 2 commanders, meaning it's a more meaningful choice going is-2) the tiger is adding more to your lineup and is in something like 5 or 6 commanders meaning it's easier to fit into your playstyle. Additionally the tiger starts with the most range but It's not just about raw stats. It's how each one interacts with its own army as much as enemy armies.
Tbh though I'm not sure why I'm even bothering anymore... You don't WANT to look past the surface |
Map choice is determined after you find a Mach based on both players vetoes
So unvetoing maps doesn’t find you more games sadly.
That's interesting. Does it explain why no bloody matter what when I play with friends it's always red ball? |
But you seem to be the only one that thinks it's inadequate. Perhaps you are using it improperly? It's not an invulnerable monster like propaganda would lead you to believe,a great and reliable tank, but not a solo game winner |
Tiger can last 1 more hit. i don't think it is considered that durable. When you think how slow, how large target size, how more popcap, how wehr don't have 60td...it just can't reconcile Wehr unit cost effective issues.
Imo why more tiger than Pershing? Cost effective problems for Wehr. And tiger looks cooler. A lot of usf players underestimated the pershing. Even i did, before looking deeper. Now i will use more Pershing.
To think i practice so much baby sit my tiger, i can do better easier with Pershing when i play usf, and i expect to get better results with it.
1 hit is a substantial bonus. What would kill a Pershing the tiger can limp away from.
Pershing RoF bonus at vet 3 got reduced to 30% if I'm not mistaken.
did it? Thanks for the correction. Isn't that about the same bonus all tanks get then at that point only later?
|
Pershing has less health than a Tiger and doesn't get any ROF buffs till vet 3(where it gets a huge 50%)
To compare to a Pershing the tiger is basicly the same thing but with more points in durability than mobility and I see far more tigers in team games than I do Pershings because of that. |
Yes of course the 60td has been a gripe since they started. We all in agreement allies are better fighting heavy then the other way round.
Since im been practicing tiger(ace), i realising allies may most probably have the better heavy/callins too. Damning combo.
Tiger gun may work fine in smaller 1v1 but in bigger team games, its super slow tracking, combine with lower pen, is wanting. This is a fresh perspective i give from a lower level player. Its rof also comes in vet2 and it isnt the fastest anyway. There are little supporting evidence to require heavy micro and lack of vet.
I believe its another unit leftover in old wehr is gold mindset.
Even sanders ttk is2 vs tiger example dont take in chance to pen, no? At a low 50-50 chance, is tiger gun that good? If you can't aim, what's use of rof?
If anything, tiger feels closer to a brumba-fant. Better AI than AT. Eaiser to counter than is2.
Something like pershing is even better AI, and has enough similar stats to outperform tiger at AT. It even got a hp buff recently and 'high' tiger hp becomes less good reasoning.
Jackson + Pershing or panther + tiger. Hmm, i say again, allies are better, especially once late game vet bonus applies
The tiger is probably the most consistent heavy tank. It has stead damage output, good armour and great health. But at the heart its an overgrown p4, use it like one and profit. You still need to support your armour, no matter what the armour is.
Axis stock armour is more durable than allied stock armour and allied doctrinal meat shields are more durable that their axis counterparts. It's not rocket science. The allied players are dedicating their doctrine to having something that can take punishment while the axis factions have that luxury by default.
In your comparison of jackson/ Pershing vs panther/ tiger did you happen to factor in health? Or just offensive stats? What about armour? |