Will there be an Ostheer revamp for Commanders too?
There are so many useless units and Commanders... hull-down is useless, fire-bombing-run is useless (hole commander is usless)
In my opinion all def. commanders are more worse than good etc.
Next patch will focus on commanders as confirmed by the balance team. |
True.
After reading so many time that Quad (and/or M36) needs to be OP AA because it the only AA Soviet (and/or the only TD USF ) get stock, I can't really say that I am surprised to see some else using a similar argument.
The question of performance is different from what is discussed here. I assumed that he wanted to show that Allies have more arty options and are therefore stronger in that department, so Axis needed their counter barrage etc...
point i was trying to make, is that 105 lefh IS THE ONLY LONG RANGE OPTION TO AXIS, and it needs to be good, and its static, needs to be vet1 to get counter arty.
just highlighting all the options which are available to allies compared to axis
Alright, than I misunderstood the purpose of your post.
I still think that the ability is badly designed since it requires absolutely no input at best and starts shooting at calliopes at worst. It is hard though to give this unit a replacement utility ability that would fit. |
for ukf and usf this is true, as the power the side grades bring is great and the units it touches is wide.
con upgrades on the other hand.... they are more akin to the likes of the AEC sidegrade i guess. you can claim the price of the AEC proper as whatever you would like it to be but in reality, since that side tech does nothing but unlock the AEC, it effectively inflates the cost of the AEC. similar to con upgrades, only its gating performance and nothing else.
What I am saying is that economy decisions are much more complicated since the whole game has been balanced over years to allow for these play styles.
Demanding 200 MP for a side tech in a Penal build is different from demanding 200 MP from a Conscript build, since Penals will bleed you like hell and scraping 200 MP together can become quite a task. Similarly, demanding fuel for side grades is also different. For example, fast capping Conscript builds allow you to generate more early fuel income compared to slow starting Penal builds. So is demanding 10-15 fuel more from a Conscript player by minute 7 really that worse? Maybe not, because he (at least partially) generated more income at the start of the game. |
Axis has:
OST- mortar,pzwerfer, mortarHT(doc) 105lefh (doc)
OKW- IEG, stuka, 105lefh (doc)
7 artillery options
Allies has:
SOV- 81mortar,katyusha, 120mortar (doc), ML20 (doc), B4 (doc)
USF- mortar,pack howie, m8 scott, mortarHT (doc), priest (doc), calliope (doc)
UKF- mortar pit, mortar (doc),land matress (doc) sexton (doc), does base arty count?
15 (16) artillery options
in 4v4, allies has option to get twice as many different artillery to field.
105 lefh counter barrage is a sensible thing to keep to balance things out
Just counting units does not prove a point.
What matters how accessible the units are. It would be much better to count commanders and then also note how viable these are. UKF for example has almost no viable indirect, that is one of the reasons why the Royal arty commander is so popular especially in team games. USF has three slightly different types of attrition based mortars but no non-doc rocket arty. Unfortunately, only rocket arty secures kills so people pick Calliope commanders to make up for it.
But just counting their doc units and then saying "look, the text here looks similarly long to the list of Axis units" (slightly polemic) does not prove a point and is rather misleading. |
True.
Just as true is that side upgrades that affect cons exclusively inflate cost of cons, while nothing inflates cost of grens, because there is nothing you can pay fuel for that affects them exclusively.
I know you like to repeat this point over and over again, so I'll do it as well:
Allied factions are designed for having to buy side techs and thereby delay their main tech. This is fully intended for viable builds. Just adding the cost to the infantry unit itself is exactly doing the same thing you are mocking others for: Looking at things in a total vacuum. Like comparing pure Gren builds to pure Con builds. It's completely blind to faction design and therefore by far not as clear cut "true" as you present it.
|
snip
snip
The bundle nade is relatively easy to time and does excellent damage. The satchel can work but is way harder to pull of plus you need to be far behind the enemy already due to the long fuse. If you flank from the side and the enemy retreats, you have no chance to throw a satchel in time. Another reason why I value the bundle so much is because it ignores light cover which is plenty in the later stages of the game, whereas you moving DPS gets further diminished.
Penals do have decent damage on the move on the long range, but the PGren advantage between 10-20 is definitely not negligable either. Conscripts though are pretty horrible at wiping, IS are also subpar even after the reworks. It gets a little better when they get their Brens, but then they may not walk, which makes wipes slightly more map dependent if your opponent manages to run around a corner or not. |
Allies already have better wiping potential with their grenades and PG's get wiped as badly from allied grenade too as they are only 4 man squad. It's all about learning to dodge grenades that every single axis faction player has to learn to get better at the game with allies being able to constantly barrage them with grenades.
I think PGrens are a different issue, in live they come to the field at a time where only UKF can field a proper counter with the MG, viable Soviet and USF builds are 2-3 min away from getting counters.
PGrens (also Obers) have the additional benefit that they are extremely good at chasing, something only barred up Riflemen can do to a similar extend. Soviets do not get similar infantry at all, while USF need to rely on Paras/Rangers and UKF usually on commandos for something similar, although also Commandos have a steep DPS drop. |
Soviet first strikes bonuses for ATG and TD applies from vet 0 vet 1.
OKW first strike bonus are available from vet 3 and vet 5
A wait you were talking about the preview version, I only thought about the live build.
In the end the units have quite some important differences though, there is no reason why they must have the same veterancy. |
Oddly SU-76 get same defensive perk (although it can not move) and 1.2 accuracy/penetration from vet 1 and the M-42 start with camo and first strike bonus +25% reload speed,+20% accuracy,+20% penetration contrary to RW.
? SU76 gets "normal" vet
And this camo ability is one of the few things that keeps it relevant late game |
StuG E... good and sh*tty at same time. It still overperforms hard versus world-buildings and sucks versus all other things... give it same gun as Scot and you see how good it could be xD (or see how Scot still overperforms lol)
Brummbär nerf while Sherman bulldoozer 105mm still overperforms? World of irony.
I was referring to the Brummbar, I just did not specify.
Hard to tell if the Bulldozer really overperforms because I never see it in the game, which might be due to the doctrine though (and the fact that I did not have an awful lot of time for playing recently). |
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
