Profile of ThoseDeafMutes

Several people ITT have said they think I'm saying B4 needs to not be counterable or such things. This isn't supposed to be a B4 balance thread, I was just using that to illustrate the broader idea of some doctrines just absolutely wrecking other doctrines.

I feel like all core armies should have the tools to be an effective fighting force, and you should not need to have one specific doctrine to counter something. B4 is a funny case because it's 100% worthless against the doctrines with divebombing, yet is stupidly good against anything else. It's such a fucking good counter to low and mid tier players in the current team game metas.

If you want to know what my thoughts are on the B4 - it needs a nerf, but artillery also needs to be both easier to counter WITHOUT doctrines, but not completely useless against certain docs, too.

The overall problem, not just B4 specifically, would be the reliance on doctrines and doctrinal call ins. This is more of a problem for Soviets than it is for Ostheer by nature.

So today I had my B4 fun spoiled by the now less common Elefant commander in a 2v2 (at least, I have hardly seen the doctrine since the range nerfs). It got me thinking about whether or not it is good design to have some commanders that simply neutralize another commander's showpiece units outright, in this case Stukka dive bomb, which automatically negates any artillery, as long as you can get line of site (in this case apparently it was using artillery flares as well as traditional scouting), it's 180munitions for a guaranteed total destruction of the enemy gun (i.e. 600 mp down the toilet).

A further complication is the fact that for USSR, it's usually necessary to choose a commander at the start or very early in the match to get effective infantry call-ins. In many cases the Ostheer commander has the option of waiting to see what shows up before choosing, unless they have a very specific strategy in mind and are pursuing it aggressively.

In some respects I feel like the CoH1 system offered a bit more flexibility, since if you made a bad doctrine choice in a particular matchup there was usually another side of the doctrine tree to go down that would offer you an alternative. Any thoughts on these or other things, in principle?

The 100 level system with prestiging was a really stupid decision. As with the whole "XP" mechanics. Just trying to get people to play more to grind up their levels the same way CoD does, and it's just as meaningless. Actually less meaningful since all you get here are skins and very very minor bulletins instead of new weapons and armor and shit that really impacts your experience.

I miss being able to see someone's actual rank without going through a stupid workaround with alt-tabbing and looking up shit on web sites.

I just jumped into my first 4v4 and can report that the "build nothing but riflemen" strat does not work very effectively

Rekt.

No more tanks for everyone it seems?

Actually there's some KV1 trolling from beyond the grave less than a minute after that crash.

"RNG > Denied" was a strangely appropriate name for the axis player.