Did OP make a thread that an allied unit is OP? Yes
Did OP get snarky comments for it? Yes
Your claim that I said something one sides is simply false.
Now PLS move on, this thread is about bofors and not about Vipper. Ad hominen arguments are non constructive.
Yes it is too low.
Mg bunker cost munition which you left out and the only common thing between bunkers and bofors is that there are buildings so there is little comparison.
The fuel cost might be unattractive in small modes and in early game but in large modes it very easy to float fuel. Then one can easily use bofors in key location.
Can the bofors be countered? Yes it can but the amount of effort needed becomes increasingly more difficult in late game when ATG/Moratr/MHT/Leig can themselves be countered by artillery.
So yes the pop being lower the a HMG is too low.
That's cap. You've got artillery at that point, bofors never survives the late game unless it's placed really far behind points of interest. |
|
I don't think I've had a single UKF partner that has done well with a bofors as the centerpiece of their strategy. I usually (as USF) will have to step in to protect them from their inadequacies. Which is what people have already mentioned. It usually forces me to make pak howitzers in order to return fire on at least 2 isg per okw player, or up to 4 mortars(yes one guy actually built 4 mortars).
The only time I see the bofors survive is when it's an actual good player that is putting pressure beyond the line of the bofors, so instead of the axis players being denied ground by the bofors, they are being hit by ground troops constantly and the bofors is behind the frontlines.
The bofors itself being on the frontline should not stop any axis players, just a potential slowdown if they don't normally make indirect weapons(which isn't common). |
|
Is the panzerwerfer not working to stop this strat? |
|
The cost should be lowered from 20. It's not used much, it has low success rate(in terms of a successful suppression). There are better abilities that cost less (like incendiary grenades). |
|
It isn't network, the rules of the game are still bound, specifically with regard to acceleration, which wouldn't apply for something network related. The bug does completely violate the deceleration rules though. |
|
4 mediums hitting a heavy frontally is extreme noob. One of the first lessons Coh1 taught was to TRY to hit the rear. With 4 mediums you should always be hitting rear shots with at least 2 of them. The situation of 4 mediums hitting the front should never really happen unless you're already dead. |
|
These aren't once in a thousand. Nearly any tank with sufficient AOE can score a hit like this if a squad is near a world object that the shell can collide with. The game will send the "miss" into that object which will kill your whole squad if close enough. |
|
It's not the ammo types that are the problem, it's the switching time. |
|
I think it would be better to argue against me using a usf perspective. The fact that you see t34 isn't relevant. Who here is building t34 to rid an area of entrenched wm? No one does that. You get a katty. t34 is good for pressure, once katty has done it's job. It's good for ram.
If you want to compare the t34 and the Sherman you can, but considering the infantry damage that you would do with HE rounds, it's kind of dumb to engage infantry with AP rounds. This is the story the data points won't tell anyone. What happens when that p4 shows up and you have a whole reload cycle to get back into ap mode? Now you are 2 shots down out 4 against a superior unit. T34 doesn't have the option to have this problem. It isn't a good comparison.
I don't know about others, but I mainly want a scott to get rid of entrenched weapon teams of all sorts. It does the job very well. I can't count on the sherman to be as reliable. The Sherman would be able to provide reliable fire support against mainline infantry, but I'm rarely faced with that situation. Mainline infantry nearly always have 2 at guns travelling with them. I don't see soviet players having success engaging this with t34. I see them launch those katty rockets at it though. Yea, they build t34 still, but it's not the one changing the balance of power. |
Everybody says like you have to dive seemingly harmless build with panthers...just to deal with a unit that dies from 3 hits, which often translates to a lot more hits, because panther will have to fire on the move, while the target is cheaper then a T34/76. Cheaper then a tank that is often used as throw away/cannon fodder, when things go south, or to trade for a slow heavy armor. The target is far from slow and has decent target size...
I'm all for a good Scott, but its it is way too good now. I guess the time will tell, but meta is already picked it up, because I see it almost every time on USF in top 200 2v2, while simultaneously I see no Shermans M4A3s. The fact that medium tank with arguably the best AOE in its class became rare on the 2v2 ladder, should say something.
The sherman doesn't satisfy a role against axis meta, right now. Not in teams at least. Most axis players are leaning on their infantry superiority and back it up with dual at guns. An effective scott is just a way better option based on the way people are playing right now. |
United States
Relic Entertainment
