|
Heavies really need to be pushed back to at least past 20 minutes, or otherwise need a significant change.
The game going from a LV or two with all the micro and skill those require, to a single heavy that isn't very threatened by anything other than another heavy is poor game design.
In most cases even if you know your opponent is going for a heavy, and you're handily winning, you can't really counter it unless your opponent severely overextends. A well managed heavy can whittle down a pair of AT guns, and a TD over time with a few repair trips mixed in.
Considering that at the current timing most players that opt against a heavy of their own will only be able to field at best two mediums, only one of which will have any window of opportunity to work with, and maybe a pair of AT guns, which are a huge manpower sacrifice and are only marginally helpful, there's no reward to medium vehicle play. The sheer value you get from a heavy, and the timing you get it is just absurd.
The only option is pick the big dumb unit with a big dumb gun and click forward for a few seconds once it's repaired, click backwards once it's low on health, rinse and repeat, instead of doing something interesting like micro 2-3 mediums along with the rest of your army.
|
and it doesnt mean prove anything wrong I said. The players were just superior than to the axis players.
That's a laugh. They alternate armies between games. You play allies one game, axis the next.
https://www.twitch.tv/videos/509612608 |
what do u mean, after today?
Soviets won all the games they were picked in the final rounds of the WCS tournament. I don't have a full list, so they might have lost one in the lower brackets, but they won 4 out 4 games they were picked in the final, and the fifth was USF rear echelon spam. I don't think there was a single axis win in either the final or 3rd place decider. |
But they do have pop cap demands. I'd sooner pay more pm and get something for it than have my popcap being eaten by noncombat units
So sacrifice them and build a conscript squad?
Alao you are out of date if you don't think the Soviet have a muni demand anymore. Oorah, and molitovs have been increased in cost, penal ptrs and satchels are a thing, 7 man cons as well as many doctrinal things.
But to list non doc units that have them: CE, sturms, sappers and iirc the wehr halftrack has them now too yes? Again. Hardly unique and hardly redeeming.
WCS is live right now. Soviets seem to have 3-4 times the number of mines as the other factions. Are you saying that what these players should really be building is more PTRS, and Oorahing?
Regardless this is off topic. If you wish to continue you may make a thread
Seems to be exactly on topic. If you think it is, then why didn't you make a separate thread on CE being bad? |
The same mines okw, brits and ass engine or field defense usf can lay. Hardly unique or redeeming.
All the other units can actually bring something to the fight and earn their pop cap.
The difference being they're much cheaper, t0, and non-doctrinal respectively, while being in an army that doesn't have a significant muni demand. |
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
Uhh 30 muni general purpose mines that litter the field in high level play, and handily win games?
Did you think this post through? |
Lock turret would be a very different ability, but probably doable: just reduce the rotation speed to zero. In coordination with attack ground, you could pre-aim turrets.
Might confuse pathing a bit though.
Lock might be a bad word. Face might be a better term. What I mean is for a way to point the turret in a certain direction other than forward while still allowing it to traverse and acquire targets. Whether or not the traverse should have a fixed angle for such a button is a somewhat harder question, but I think something like a 120 degree angle would probably be the easiest. That way you'd be able to have something like in the OP, while also having the ability to pre-face the turret for stuff like peeking around a corner. |
Overall a qol improvement, i'm in.
Same.
A button to lock the turret rest position on all vehicles would be nice too for those situations where you want to peek out from a hedge row and fire to your side.
I know you can issue an attack ground to get the turret to move, but that's kinda finicky, temporary, and noisy. |
|
Scopes could come with a movement type toggle that reduces max speed to 10% or whatever. I'd imagine that'd allow them to rotate without really moving anywhere, but might conflict with toggled off vehicles that are stopped. |
|
While I don't have strong opinions on what the commanders should look like, I think taking out some of the versatility of heavy cav will be the first step towards more interesting choices.
There really shouldn't be an omni-doctrine like that in the game. Changing it will weaken USF a bit, but I think it'll balance out the recent RM buffs. I don't think it should offer any major improvements to infantry game like field defenses and rangers. It should focus mostly on late game power at the cost of early-game weakness. |
0
Stormjäger
Porkloin
Major Storm
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
