Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8
I am not sure why you want bring the history of Ostheer patches up, no matter what the history is the fact remains that Ostheer did not perform good in the last tournament.
Maybe it's 'cause the Axis players aren't a bunch of forum crybabies, and they keep their cool and fight the uphill battle, unlike some of their "allied" counterparts.
Posts: 306
Stug had major nerf in ROF some people think that it still up.
HT got buffed but mostly added utility so that people would actually build the thing.
Mortar was nerfed along with other mortars and once one of the most powerful units of ostheer see as much action as other factions mortars.
Regardless of all these buffs OKW still get picked more than Ostheer.
Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1
If you want to bring up tournaments to justify what needs buffs, then we should leave ost for now and focus on buffing UKF more, because clearly, according to last tourmanent, they need it much more then ost and are in much worse and weaker state.
But where are the significant buffs over the last lets say 2 years that broke ost?
Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1
Stug Rof was OP beforehand dominating the 2vs2 tournament with command p4 and the o shit i got outplayed smoke. So its nerf was justified. Now the stug is more about mobility which is fine by me, if we wont see is2 evry game then it actually will be pretty good since the only real lack of it is pen
Becouse the only counters to stug are right now paks TDs and heavys, you can barely flank it with mediums anymore now that it has its new speed
Posts: 833
I am not sure why you want bring the history of Ostheer patches up, no matter what the history is the fact remains that Ostheer did not perform good in the last tournament.
Fire and terror claim that allies have not gotten any significant buff the last two year. Now PLS explain if you agree with that or you do not agree with that.
But pls stop trolling and derailing this thread just because you want to disagree with anything I post.
But you are missing the impact of the tech changes. USF had always had great unit but the come with a price. Support weapons would come later and one would have either access to suppression and light vehicles or ATG , indirect fire weapon and light tank.
Actually those restriction where so important that they Airborne doctrine was designed to simply bypass them.
Once these restriction where removed USF become a faction not only with superior infatry and light vehicles but a faction that could beat ostheer in their own game of combined arms.
Not to mention a number of commander revamps that made USF commanders stronger and with more abilities.
Now read my post did I say ostheer need buffs? What I said is that other faction need nerfs.
You can argue what ever you like but your example is balance issue and not a design issue.
It also flawed. The m20 and AEC did not "major redesigns numerous times".. Neither did Soviet T1 and it was not because of sniper/222 problem. It was because of maxim spam.
Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1
No it was in part because of Ostheer and the old sniper meta. Even diehard wehr fanboys like imperial Dane admit early snipers are a bad design choice.
Or do you think AEC and m20 were given bonus detection and MG damage vs snipers for nothing? The patch notes are still there, so let's not start denying old Ostheer was part of the problem.
One search on the forum about Wehr sniper will quickly highlight the design issues with it being fielded so early and how USF and Brits had no answer to old double sniper. This then led to stuff like AEC buff, later AEC AI buff, reduction in sniper survivability, AEC/m20 bonus vs sniper and earlier m20.
Posts: 3602 | Subs: 1
My point remains that Ostheer is the most "complete" faction and much better designed than other factions. (One of it weakness is that it does not have a light tank.)
Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1
And that's why it is the most difficult to balance,...
Posts: 8154 | Subs: 2
"better" - I guess? OST still doesn't have any vehicle with even close to 60 range, except for the 245f doc-locked ele. The closest they have is a 50-range STUG. Meanwhile literally every other faction has one non-doc TD at 60 range.
OST can manage, but they're still going to be fighting an uphill battle if a match goes into late-game.
Posts: 1351
Posts: 960
And it'll always be meta as long as both axis factions spam nothing more then P5 and P6.
You see, you think Tiger is a cure.
Its not.
Together with other heavies, its the cause of pretty much all problems.
If there is no danger of heavy tanks, there is no reason to build more then 1 TD and if you can't play around 1 TD, you REALLY need to improve.
Again, not necessarily. I'll remind you that the Su85 was cheaper and better at dealing with mediums, specially with vet, than their current version. The FF is not the ideal unit to deal with mass mediums and the Jackson is an issue on it's own.
A Stug with some reshuffle on vet (def vet 2 swap with vet 3) and putting TWP at 160dmg (since it already forces a reload) would make the unit perfectly fine. Same with adding to the PV accuracy on vet a lower value, as all other TD receive it.
Posts: 8154 | Subs: 2
I never suggested the current Tiger/Heavies were a 'cure'; they're a crutch. Heavies are a problem, but if they're nerfed (and they should be) without nerfing 60-range TDs, we're just going to end up with OST being in an even worse situation. Most players go for a Tiger over a Panther (or mediums) simply because a P4/P5 gets completely deleted by TDs, while not doing all that much. Meanwhile, a Tiger has a lot more HP and armor, does a lot more damage, and can deal extremely well with Allied infantry.
Once heavies are fixed, TD spam is still going to be meta, since it will completely shut down any and all Axis tanks, except for super-heavy TDs and maybe JP4s.
How is a STUG going to deal with an M36? The M36 is faster, has more range, more HP, has a turret, and is more accurate on the move. The SU85 and FF aren't as bad, but they're still going to have the range advantage, meaning they're almost always going to get the first hit in.
Posts: 810
Posts: 785
When you say recently buffed what do you mean?
When was OStheer mortar buffed,HT, Stug buffed?
Posts: 2272 | Subs: 1
I also think that comparing anything to UKF is somewhat pointless; UKF is simply a poorly designed faction. At release, they were lacking so many of the basic tools that they were inherently going to end up flipping between 'incredibly OP' (ex. release-state brace) and 'completely useless', based entirely on the stats of a few units (IS, AEC, and a few others). Now that they're starting to get some of the basic tools (i.e. snares), they're getting better, as their balance can be based around more units and/or abilities. However, there's still a lot of issues, such as the balancing related to 'bolster', the lack of a normal mortar (or similar), the lack of garrison clearing in the early game, etc.
UKF is going to be a mess until that's addressed, and until then, factions really shouldn't be compared to them.
Posts: 682
You are not going to deal with those in a vacuum or 1v1 arena match up. I specifically said the M36 is an issue but as OH you would rather be facing an army of M36 which are not going to do anything against your infantry and support weapons rather than a Pershing which will nuke them to the sky.
I mention both the Stug and PV cause those are the 2 vehicles which i feel like could get some smaller adjustments. ANY nerfs on TDs are not going to meant shit against T3.
Look, OH had been fighting with their current roster for years and fighting 60 range TD and didn't get dominated. Their had been metas on which it had been better or had been worst. But not because they can't deal with TDs.
Posts: 1392
When brits came out, the forum people said they are "well designed". I can still look for the threads stating this
 |
|
|
44 | ||
|
|
|
|
20 | ||
 |
|
|
17 | ||
 |
|
|
15 | ||
|
|
|
|
6 | ||
 |
|
|
5 | ||
|
|
|
|
31 | ||
|
|
|
|
19 | ||
|
|
|
|
3 | ||
|
|
|
|
3 |
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
