Why does rak need retreat?

Where do you see "everyone" suggesting it leave the HQ?

But btw Brits don't have snares from the start either, and they never get them on their mainlines. Their AT gun isn't in the HQ...

The usual USF fanboys were complaining about raketen being in T0/there's always access to raketen.

And I already made it clear in my previous post - OKW needs raketen in T0, or OKW would have no stock counter to M3/UC.

Brits don't need T0 AT because they're not fighting 2 minute clown cars and they are the ones with the UC. In terms of doctrinal options it's already a huge pain as Brits to deal with a fast 221. If it wasn't separated into Axis vs Allies you'd see Soviets stomping Brits and USF every game with Penal/Flamer Engie clown car.

Basically some factions need certain stuff because the factions they face have certain units that would otherwise be uncounterable.

I thought it was mind-numbingly obvious but only people who play all factions understand this balance concept.

I wouldn't change a thing with Rekt. But I agree that USF and Brit probably have the worst match up against 2 since Soviets can easily wipe with Kats.

Where do you see "everyone" suggesting it leave the HQ?

But btw Brits don't have snares from the start either, and they never get them on their mainlines. Their AT gun isn't in the HQ...

Axis don't have min 1 clown cars. Hence why they don't require a t0 AT gun, that and they need 30F to get to AT gun tier, and they start with 20. Even at zero connected territory that's only 2.5 minutes you can tech.

U said it right it ALMOST has the same range as other at gun , it ALMOST has the same at gun shield , it ALMOST has the same projectile

When they make it a copy paste of other at guns then yes remove retreat

Because then we should make all infantry squads copy paste.
All mortars.
All snipers.
All commanders.
All tanks.
All Rocket Artillery.
All Hv Artillery.
All Planes.
All commando/Paras/Partisans
All Bases
All Mortars.

And just finally accept that this dysmorphic balance is only bringing complications.

Germans would be able to dis-mount from their tanks
Allies Katyusha would gain a turret for their rockets (but go from 16 to 10) in 1 salvo
etc etc
Bazookas would have same stats as PzShrek
Con AT grenades only have main uptech cost
Grenadiers 5 man.
Penals get SVT40 with stats of STG44 but -1 man
PzGrenadier get +1 man
British Rifles start with 5 men.
And so forth.

And, yea, OKW get Pak40.

It's what you want.

The usual USF fanboys were complaining about raketen being in T0/there's always access to raketen.

So quote the person you're refferring too... I see most people talking about retreat, not moving the Rak out of the HQ.

Basically some factions need certain stuff because the factions they face have certain units that would otherwise be uncounterable.

I thought it was mind-numbingly obvious but only people who play all factions understand this balance concept.

What the heck does that have to do with whether or not Rak should retreat? Most people are talking about whether or not it deserves retreat? I don't see anyone struggling with the concept of what "countering" means...

Axis don't have min 1 clown cars. Hence why they don't require a t0 AT gun, that and they need 30F to get to AT gun tier, and they start with 20. Even at zero connected territory that's only 2.5 minutes you can tech.

221/3 can do a number on the Brits first of all, and pretty much for the exact reason I'm talking about

Second the snares don't hit the field as soon as you unlock the tech. You still have to build the squad and you're not going to have anywhere near the number of snares that other factions will

Again: I am NOT saying to move the Rak. I really don't see anyone saying it should either, I don't get what you guys are worried about...

And just finally accept that this dysmorphic balance is only bringing complications.

It only does for those single factions heroes. People who actually learn more than one playstyle don't complaint as much.

Maybe paying some AoE would fix your symmetrical factions desire. Just saying

221 can do a number on the Brits first of all

Second the snares don't hit the field as soon as you unlock the tech. You still have to build the squad and you're not going to have anywhere near the number of snares that other factions will

Again: I am NOT saying to move the Rak. I really don't see many people saying it should either, I don't get what you guys are worried about...

UC can also trade decent with a 221 as well. Idk, I've never really had or seen an issue with 221 vs brits. Partially because elite armor is more or less trash with the early nature of it and the ST being a literal hit or miss. The only real good part of the doctrine is HEAT rounds.

Partially because elite armor is more or less trash with the early nature of it and the ST being a literal hit or miss. The only real good part of the doctrine is HEAT rounds.

Also right now for OKW its: Everything < Grand Offensive

Too keep some fucking assymetry in the game

Its not like its unfair or causes imbalance

#saynotofurthermirroring

asymmetry != inherently good game design

asymmetry != inherently not CoH

There, fixed up for you.

Since everyone seems against the whole "replace it with a Pak40" idea, the only other way I'd support removing retreat is if they fixed the horrendous crew spacing. Right now, especially in cover, the crew has a horrible tendency to blob together so tightly that a single Pak-Howitzer shot can drop the entire thing to ~10%.

asymmetry != inherently good game design

I'd say it's almost exactly the opposite. Perfect mirror matches are almost always bad game design, unless it's driven by player choice (intentional mirror matches). I can't think of a single recent competitive game that isn't inherently designed around asymmetry.

CSGO
SC2 (many find mirror matches dull)
MOBAs (DOTA2, League of Legends, often use draft pick in competitive modes)
Fighting Games (i.e. Smash Ultimate, MK, etc. have a lot of 'counter picking').
Even old RTS games like AoE 1+2 (nation bonuses, unique tech)

The only truly competitive games that were entirely focused on symmetry I can think of are ~20 year old 'Arena Shooter' type games (i.e. Quake), and those have massively dropped in popularity.

Because then we should make all infantry squads copy paste.
All mortars.
All snipers.
All commanders.
All tanks.
All Rocket Artillery.
All Hv Artillery.
All Planes.
All commando/Paras/Partisans
All Bases
All Mortars.

And just finally accept that this dysmorphic balance is only bringing complications.

Germans would be able to dis-mount from their tanks
Allies Katyusha would gain a turret for their rockets (but go from 16 to 10) in 1 salvo
etc etc
Bazookas would have same stats as PzShrek
Con AT grenades only have main uptech cost
Grenadiers 5 man.
Penals get SVT40 with stats of STG44 but -1 man
PzGrenadier get +1 man
British Rifles start with 5 men.
And so forth.

And, yea, OKW get Pak40.

It's what you want.

i asked for m57 not pak 40 but anyway

I'd say it's almost exactly the opposite. Perfect mirror matches are almost always bad game design, unless it's driven by player choice (intentional mirror matches). I can't think of a single recent competitive game that isn't inherently designed around asymmetry.

There's asymmetry and then there's asymmetry. While certainly not as poorly-designed as the first game in this respect, CoH2 is still quite bad in that factions are balanced or even inherently designed for counterplay with specific other factions (see Western Front release state for example).

The ideal state would be like Dawn of War, where all factions are balanced for play against one another, including themselves. In this instance Starcraft is hardly the model to emulate.

I'd say it's almost exactly the opposite. Perfect mirror matches are almost always bad game design, unless it's driven by player choice (intentional mirror matches). I can't think of a single recent competitive game that isn't inherently designed around asymmetry.

CSGO
SC2 (many find mirror matches dull)
MOBAs (DOTA2, League of Legends, often use draft pick in competitive modes)
Fighting Games (i.e. Smash Ultimate, MK, etc. have a lot of 'counter picking').
Even old RTS games like AoE 1+2 (nation bonuses, unique tech)

The only truly competitive games that were entirely focused on symmetry I can think of are ~20 year old 'Arena Shooter' type games (i.e. Quake), and those have massively dropped in popularity.

Well i guess it depends on where you draw the line for symmetry/asymmetry components. Not many games design around perfect symmetry but they do let it run in symmetric ways.

CSGO: the disparity is mostly on the game mode itself with very few differences in the tools they get access to. You could argue the "units" aka weapons they use are the same with counted exceptions.
A better example would had been R6.

COD: i think it's basically whatever anyone wants to pick. Some game modes are more asymmetric (hardpoint vs search and destroy)

SC2/WC3/AoE/C&C and many others allow for mirror matches. We are the wierds one which forces people to play as both factions.

MOBA: inversely to CSGO, they had the "same" map mirrored but the tools they get access to are different. Although they might fulfill a similar role.

Overwatch: as with CSGO, the difference is in the map objective. Anyone can pick whatever.

Rocket League/Sports game: mirror

Fighting games: if anything, they allow mirrors as people just "main" certain characters.

Fortnite/BR genre: everyone starts equally.

Quake/Halo: the first one lost popularity. The 2nd one is top notch.

i would give the rakten away for the USF m1 AT gun anyday.

Lets make this....*i laugh in 80 range cone with high reload and 290 penetration for a little muni price*