Horrible positioning, you had a huge blind spot, you were clumped in yellow cover, and you didn't retreat when they were in critical range
Are you serious?
The Maxim was FRONTALLY charged by infantry (what it is supposed to hard counter) and fired from spotting range, still you think the Panzergrenadiere should win?
As any experienced Axis player could tell you, you made several crucial mistakes:
- Maxim did not fire at max range
- You left the Maxim unsupported. Everyone knows that the Maxim reached its full potential only when there are at least 5 Cons around it
- There were no mines around to damage and more importantly suppress the Panzergrenadiers
- You used the Maxim against a unit that had light cover for a split second
- You used the Maxim against infantry
- You used the Maxim
Seriously mate, "Git gud", "L2P" and "dOn't bLamE tHe gAmE".
And, as Katitof always says in these situations: "The problem sits in front of the screen".
Also you could have merged into the Maxim afterwards. All your fault.
So, but now serioiusly:
Maxim is okay against open fields, but if there is any cover it becomes super janky. If units have light cover like in this video, you can basically already pack your MG and try to fall back. Against heavy cover, good lord. Unless your Maxim targets the one guy that might not be in cover at the time, then it's okay. This makes the Maxim sometimes very unreliable to use and is the source of a lot of frustration about this unit.
I think the Maxim should either get a more standardized design or maybe give it damage modifier against units in cover? If the problem is spammability, it could also do with higher suppression, with short setup but long tear down time. Would keep the role as an offensive MG, but flanking is way easier.
Currently the Maxim is not complete trash, but it has a very bad design. Especially in the late game when there is more cover available, it becomes very unreliable.
Stun is simply OP if it lands and it if it becomes homing it will land. Two infatry section can stun lock a vehicle.
If it is not homing and does not stun vehicles it if fine for Ro.E.
I disagree with the stun.
By all means, the HBG is a normal satchel (just tested it, does the same amount of damage, same fuse, same range). The HGB costs 5 mun more though.
A normal satchel does engine damage if the vehicle does not drive away, the HGB only does a stun. So actually you pay more for the HGB and get less, at least AT wise. Don't know about the exact AoE damage profile, but I assume they're very similar too. And the Penal satchel does NOT cause gameplay/balance issues.
I don't see why this topic should be an issue at all. The only combination might be smoke + HGB, but that is probably a smaller issue that can go live. Balance team has more important things to sort out at the moment than this, so the time can be used elsewhere way better than on this single combination where at least I am not even sure if it will cause problems at all.
If the weapon is meant to be "anti garrison/structure tool" remove the stun to vehicle and move it Ro.E.
Sections already have grenades and it will increase the utility of Ro.E. It will also prevent the one unit smoke explosive combo.
If it is meant to be an AT weapon make it homing and revert the changes to damage/AOE profile (I would also replace the stun with weapon disable to avoid stun lock).
The whole point of the winter preview is to avoid "blindly "patching" a mechanic", so make the change in preview and see how it goes.
I agree with the argumentation, but still two points:
(I always assumed that the HGB is the same as or at least comparable to the satchel of Penals stat wise, but maybe I'm wrong)
- Stun on vehicles does not need to go. If enemy infantry comes so close to your vehicle and you park it on such a long fuse, it deserves some punishment
- If we put it on RE, only the anti garrison makes sense. Otherwise REs would have normal AT (80 dmg) grenade and the HGB (300 dmg?). I thought the AT satchel was designed for heavy damage, but a medium still needs 3 shots afterwards? REs would become a squad that could damage a vehicle past the 320 dmg mark. Also not sure if this could cause issues with PIATs, but on the other hand PIATs really need more play.
Actually HGB used to be a snare only and for apparent reason Relic decided to add the demolition property, probably because they did not want to give a homing AT weapon at the time.
Since now Relic has decided that UKF should have an AT snare they is little not to make it homing also and to remove stun.
IS have no reason to have access to demolition weapon.
Considering only infantry units I agree. IS already have decent utility.
In a faction design however HGB can act as an anti garrison/structure tool for the late game. UKF only has the base arty that has to act both as area denial and anti structure. Most of the other factions have at least two forms of artillery, usually mortars and rockets.
The HGB could act as a "faction flavor" compensation for not having mobile arty. Otherwise you'd always need your base howitzers to fire at a bunker.
All in all I think the issue - if there is any - will not be huge. I don't see why we should be blindly "patching" a mechanic, since this is by far not guaranteed to cause issues.
This smoke/gammon combination comes into effect the earliest from minute 15-20 onwards. It could be teched earlier but at the price of delaying your tank which is not very likely to be done unless you have won anyways.
I think this is a risk the game can take. Let the patch go live like this and if there are any issues fix them afterwards. Better than now basically blindly rebalancing abilities that might not need balancing.
To reduce the panicy nature of the ostheer puma, maybe instead of a call-in it should remain a buildable vehicle in T2 at CP5, but without the BP2 requirement.
Or take a step further and do something that no other doctrinal abilities do at the moment (if possible): the puma would be a side tech that can be unlocked in T2, similar to the british AEC. Basicly you spend some extra fuel to get access to pumas, but doing so delays the arrival of tanks for the ostheer player. This would bring some extra risk into picking and using pumas.
I think the additional tech would completely kill it. This makes yozr Puma really not worth the cost and since teching plus building could add a delay that does not make it worthwhile anymore to get it and rather go for the better scaling StuG. The Puma is a reaction unit, not something to build preemptively, so it should not become too gated behind time constraints. Then you would either spam Pumas or you don't buy them at all.
Guards have "Elite" PTRS that are much better than Penal PTRS when it comes to AI if I remember correctly. But I'm pretty sure it's nowhere near Mosin damage. It's an interesting idea but it really gives you no reason not to spam guards when they are already pretty good out the gate at AI since the LMG is usually an instant upgrade.
Pretty much. Guards PTRS have way higher accuracy, which gives them a fair chance to hit infantry models while AT performance is basically unchanged compared to normal PTRS.
I'm not sure where OP is going. If I understand it correctly he wants better AI on Guards "to bring them in line with shock troops"?
I think this is a bad idea. SOV already have shocks as elite AI infantry, why make another squad like that? Guards are a hybrid to push you through the early-mid game and can fight off even a Luchs. They save you from buying an AT gun. They even have decent stationary DPS when upgraded. Of course it's not the very top of AI performances, but it's not meant and designed that way, and their current design also works well. They have a decent nade and a semi-snare. They're alright.
Correct me if I'm wrong (I never played 1v1 personally), but the ideal Mobile Defence game looked like this:
1) hyperaggressive light vehicle play with flamer 251(s) (and maybe a 222) to cause severe pressure early game;
2) force Allies to respond with a light vehicle of their own (AEC/Stuart/T-70);
3) immediately counter that vehicle with a call-in (panic) Puma;
4) follow up with the techless Command P4 and finish the game with the huge resource lead caused by the above.
So no, with the Command Panzer IV now requiring tech, a large part of the excellent synergy that the doctrine had is gone. Replacing Panzer Tactician with the Stuka Smoke would further tone down the synergy with the flamer 251 (or 222s).
I genuinely think that with the changes to the Command P4 the Puma should now be balanced (I've always thought that it was the Command P4 and not the Puma that was the problem). However I think the main problem is that the Puma is such a valuable unit for Ostheer (as at 5 CP it was and still would be their only reliable counter to Allied LVs) that making it readily available at 5 CP again might risk Ostheer players overpicking MobiDef again. And people seem to be annoyed by overpopular doctrines more than anything imbalanced.
Yes, that's what I also meant. Although I forgot the Command P4. The whole doctrine was basically fail-safe. If you have a decent early game you can rush a Command P4, if you screw up your early game you have a panic Puma to even things out. An earlier Puma will just leave the early game safety. Might be okay, but it is very hard to judge if at all/how many problems this could cause.
Brits are basically the only faction that could do a somewhat similar build like that. Early flame UC (comes earlier but by far not as potent as the 251) plus AEC (Puma).
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
