Login

russian armor

What's the next patch targeted objectives?

13 Nov 2019, 19:57 PM
#21
avatar of elchino7
Senior Moderator Badge

Posts: 8154 | Subs: 2

It's beyond me how many people are asking for Brit buffs. The sections are fine now, they've been buffed back from being overnerfed. I'm pretty sure the complainers want sections to be buffed back to their original stats which was downright broken.

Also, the "nerf" to the bofors was well deserved seeing that the Lefh is nerfed (yes i know, ml20 was nerfed too, but SU never uses them, cuz katy is so much better.) And the "nerf" was just to prevent entire squads (even sometimes retreating ones) from being annihilated by accidentally stepping into its firing radius for just 2-3 secs. Does the bofors still shred Ost LVs in 2 seconds? If it does, how can the UKF only players claim that Bofors actually received a meaningful nerf?


UKF suffers from systemic design problems as how OKW was before rework. The problem is that they don't have as many non doctrinal units which you could touch without making the faction play like "cancer".

There's small suggestions like allowing AEC and Bofor or making mortar pits more affordable but enable more counterplay and bleed (by making them have half their firepower gated by garrisoning units inside).

Regarding IS, the nerf was sensible but it didn't fix anything at all, just removing the faction from most competitive play. People still require bolster + double weapon to remain competitive.

I would give them some small buff (revert some nerfs) aimed towards early/mid but removing their late game scaling.

Ex: start by making bren better but more expensive. Make Bolster and infantry upgrades (medic/flare) occupy a weapon slot. Make the flare upgrade provide a single scoped Lee Enfield.

Objective is making IS more modular, without been a clear option having them as 5 man IS with double bren and medic/flare upgrade possible.

As healing is no longer a no brainer, you could make the forward assembly cheaper to 150mp and move that 50mp difference to all other upgrade (retreat point and doc engineers). It would be OH bunker + medic equivalent. I'm aware this could be strong, but i'm skeptic that a 50mp would now make it OP.

Alternative: only bolster occupies a weapon slot.

It was changed from a constant MP drain to an RNG MP drain. The problem is, someone needs to figure out how to make the Pak not be a slightly longer range mortar, while at the same time removing the ability to randomly 1-shot models.


It can't 1 shot outside of vet 2 heat barrage and it's not more RNG than a normal mortar. It's no longer closer to be as accurate as an ISG while having the AoE of the 120mm mortar.


13 Nov 2019, 20:02 PM
#22
avatar of elchino7
Senior Moderator Badge

Posts: 8154 | Subs: 2

Overall:

-Figure what to do with UKF.
-Delay heavies.
-Hammer down some nails inconsistencies.
-Check if some more rework commander or abilities is possible.
-Perform a global check of xp values and veterancy.
13 Nov 2019, 20:50 PM
#23
avatar of Osinyagov
Senior Modmaker Badge

Posts: 1389 | Subs: 1

Overall:

-Figure what to do with UKF.
-Delay heavies.
-Hammer down some nails inconsistencies.
-Check if some more rework commander or abilities is possible.
-Perform a global check of xp values and veterancy.


And more UI fixes!
13 Nov 2019, 21:16 PM
#24
avatar of SkysTheLimit

Posts: 3423 | Subs: 1



Which is as it should be because no one wants Maxim spam back. Soviet mortar is decent too. Zis is awesome because of barrage.

Maxim doesn't need more buffs. Penals don't need nerfs. Cons are fine as they are.


I still think the maxim should be buffed. I don't see how its still the same price as mg42, and requires a tier. Increase it's cost with the buff if you're worried about spam
13 Nov 2019, 21:19 PM
#25
avatar of Stug life

Posts: 4474

increase set up time and increase suppression by 10-15% , it will not be spammed and a moved if it require long set up time (u know like mg are supposed to be), leave the set down time same as now
13 Nov 2019, 21:37 PM
#26
avatar of Grim

Posts: 1096



I still think the maxim should be buffed. I don't see how its still the same price as mg42, and requires a tier. Increase it's cost with the buff if you're worried about spam


I'd pay 300mp for a decent soviet MG at this stage.
13 Nov 2019, 21:40 PM
#27
avatar of Hon3ynuts

Posts: 818



I still think the maxim should be buffed. I don't see how its still the same price as mg42, and requires a tier. Increase it's cost with the buff if you're worried about spam


As Someone who plays a decent amount of team games I can recognize the concern. On a map like Steppes, the Raw HP of Maxims makes them very difficult to counter early on. Maxim's are not cost effective units but they can really hold ground very effectively if you have several. In 1v1 this is terrible but when you only have to try to hold like 1 resource point it can be very effective.

Units just don't have enough DPS early on without upgrades or grenades to displace maxims. I don't really think you could resolve this without reducing the vet 0 crew size b/c the maxim is still terrible and 20 mp per model is super hard to keep up with in the mid game when units are capable of dealing with mgs more effectively. Not that it can't be beaten but if your unprepared at minute 2-3 when the multiple maxims come you can get forced off and have a terrible time getting back on the fuel.

Anyways, Soviet T1/T2 should definitely be looked at if possible. Soviets are fine in general but between minute 1 and 9 when a t70 comes out you can't really tech to any impact units without a doc and it can be quite painful.

TLDR; Making t1 and t2 more viable as bridges from cons to the t70 would be much appreciated. Rather than the current all in t1,t2 or con builds we frequently see :thumbsup:
13 Nov 2019, 21:43 PM
#28
avatar of elchino7
Senior Moderator Badge

Posts: 8154 | Subs: 2



And more UI fixes!


I don't count those as things which should be listed. If it can be done it should be done. Just like bugfixes :D
13 Nov 2019, 21:58 PM
#29
avatar of DonnieChan

Posts: 2272 | Subs: 1

i would switch the mortar pit with the regular mortar from that new doctrine
14 Nov 2019, 04:17 AM
#30
avatar of CODGUY

Posts: 888

Please allow the British FW CP to build BOTH medics and a retreat point. You could still leave it to where you can only do repair REs or FW but always allow the medics. I understand you might have to increase the manpower cost to 250 again to build them but still, it's so dumb and wasteful to have to build two to get medics and a retreat point.

Make Air Landing Officer a non-doctrinal 5 man squad buildable after teching to Company Command Post.

Get rid of the Glider, its stupid, overly expenisve and can't be repaired, it's just a crap version of a FW CP. Make all commandos in Vanguard Regiment a regular call in.

Tie all emplacements to the T2 Bofors side tech and include a non-doctrinal 81mm mortar with the AEC side tech.

Changes for other factions:

Jagpanzer to 14 pop
Firefly to 14 pop
Jackson to 14 pop
Panther to 16 pop
Comet to 16 pop
Churchill to 18 pop

Call in Heavies:
Pershing to 18 pop
Tiger to 18 pop
Churchill Croc/AVRE 18 pop
Strumtiger to 18 pop
Tiger ACE 19 to pop
King Tiger and everything else no more than 20 pop.

14 Nov 2019, 05:54 AM
#31
avatar of Toxicfirebal

Posts: 66

Buff maxim/nerf penals, revamp USF AT choices so Jackson dosent carry USF AT, make brits great again( revamp brit infantry, buff comet, cromwell, nerf churchill. Fix heavy tank call in. Remove snare and make falls have 3 not 4 FG.Buff sturmtiger so it isnt a worse AVRE in every way
14 Nov 2019, 06:06 AM
#32
avatar of Khan

Posts: 578

- Address Panzer Werfer. Too unreliable. Doesn't inflict fatal damage to team weapons even when they are caught squarely in the barrage.

- Address Panther. Needs a defined role. For a tank that's supposed to be a dedicated tank hunter it has laughable accuracy. Misses point blank.

- Address Pak Howie. No input required instagib unit.
14 Nov 2019, 06:13 AM
#33
avatar of mrgame2

Posts: 1794

I thought ukf is fine, just boring. Usf and sov are simply a bit stronger and more flexibility. All 3 have strong late games, okw is somewhere between them, while Wehr is worst late game.

As i suggest, make bofor and aec both techable, give aec wp round to clear garrison and team weapons. Its all good
14 Nov 2019, 08:53 AM
#34
avatar of SeductiveCardbordBox

Posts: 591 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post14 Nov 2019, 06:06 AMKhan
- Address Panzer Werfer. Too unreliable. Doesn't inflict fatal damage to team weapons even when they are caught squarely in the barrage.


Objectively incorrect. Don't use it from max range.

- Address Panther. Needs a defined role. For a tank that's supposed to be a dedicated tank hunter it has laughable accuracy. Misses point blank.


It has literally the best accuracy on its main gun of any Ostheer vehicle. The BEST. No Ost vehicle is more accurate than the Panther.

- Address Pak Howie. No input required instagib unit.


Its autofire is awful now. The spikes are still harsh sometimes but its overall bleed is back on par with a mortar and a half worth of investment, with manual barrages needed to make the most of the unit.
14 Nov 2019, 09:40 AM
#35
avatar of Mr Carmine

Posts: 1289



Objectively incorrect. Don't use it from max range.



It has literally the best accuracy on its main gun of any Ostheer vehicle. The BEST. No Ost vehicle is more accurate than the Panther.



Its autofire is awful now. The spikes are still harsh sometimes but its overall bleed is back on par with a mortar and a half worth of investment, with manual barrages needed to make the most of the unit.


Very well said. I agree a 100%.
14 Nov 2019, 10:31 AM
#36
avatar of Acidfreak

Posts: 281

Fix airborne guards. With 380 Manpower cost their performance is a laughing stock. They need hundred munitions for 3 dps. But they're still meh. Like doesn't justify the cost of the squad. Also remove gimmicky abilities or improve them. I made a separate thread about this as well. Give a more better grenade. Since this is airborne company it wouldn't hurt to give a better strafing run to guards with a global cool down. It was nerfed pre release but can be buffed with a cost increase.
14 Nov 2019, 18:53 PM
#37
avatar of blancat

Posts: 810

People here know little about the UKF and do not understand it

I'm worried about what terrible time the UKF will spend

UKF needs a revamp patch, but no one has specific suggestions
14 Nov 2019, 18:56 PM
#38
avatar of blancat

Posts: 810

jump backJump back to quoted post14 Nov 2019, 06:13 AMmrgame2
I thought ukf is fine, just boring. Usf and sov are simply a bit stronger and more flexibility. All 3 have strong late games, okw is somewhere between them, while Wehr is worst late game.

As i suggest, make bofor and aec both techable, give aec wp round to clear garrison and team weapons. Its all good



You always say ridiculous things

You're playing this game, right?
14 Nov 2019, 19:05 PM
#39
avatar of TheGentlemenTroll

Posts: 1044 | Subs: 1

nerf heavy tanks for all factions
15 Nov 2019, 10:44 AM
#40
avatar of konfucius

Posts: 129

wehr needs to have mg42 adjusted for the quality of their mainline or pzgrens need to be adjusted they can't have both
1 user is browsing this thread: 1 guest

Ladders Top 10

  • #
    Steam Alias
    W
    L
    %
    Streak
Data provided by Relic Relic Entertainment

Replay highlight

VS
  • U.S. Forces flag cblanco ★
  • The British Forces flag 보드카 중대
  • Oberkommando West flag VonManteuffel
  • Ostheer flag Heartless Jäger
uploaded by XXxxHeartlessxxXX

Board Info

679 users are online: 679 guests
0 post in the last 24h
0 post in the last week
28 posts in the last month
Registered members: 49427
Welcome our newest member, Baqis73421
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM