Login

russian armor

Unusual Ostheer Suggestion

  • This thread is locked
PAGES (3)down
9 Mar 2020, 13:14 PM
#21
avatar of agustinveinte

Posts: 38

jump backJump back to quoted post9 Mar 2020, 08:52 AMSumi


Lol what?

1. OST mortar GrW 34 has 5 range more than US 81 mm mortar, adding to that the counter barrage ability.
2. Pak 40 has stun armor option, comprehend that, stun the target. Insane pen as compared to US. Although US at has increased view ability and AP rounds but that does not stops the tank or prevents it from using the smoke ability.
3. Mg 42. Do we really need to discuss this? AP rounds, arc, supporting infantry dps. T0 build.
4.

SNIPER

.



If the relic gives the Grens a one more model and gives them the same statistics as the Riflemans currently have, I honestly wouldn't mind if the mortar and the Pak (which I consider currently bad) receive a Nerf, and put the mg42 in t1.
9 Mar 2020, 13:23 PM
#22
avatar of blancat

Posts: 810




Yes they are


Did you know Rifleman is more expensive than grenadier?

And in coh2, the long range unit is always strong in almost situations
9 Mar 2020, 13:26 PM
#23
avatar of blancat

Posts: 810




If the relic gives the Grens a one more model and gives them the same statistics as the Riflemans currently have, I honestly wouldn't mind if the mortar and the Pak (which I consider currently bad) receive a Nerf, and put the mg42 in t1.


u should play USF not Ost

Don't try to make all factions the same

9 Mar 2020, 13:35 PM
#24
avatar of agustinveinte

Posts: 38



u should play USF not Ost

Don't try to make all factions the same



yes, I play USF, and in the current patch I play better and I enjoy playing more with USF than playing with OST, that's why I say that
9 Mar 2020, 14:07 PM
#25
avatar of blancat

Posts: 810



yes, I play USF, and in the current patch I play better and I enjoy playing more with USF than playing with OST, that's why I say that


GL HF
9 Mar 2020, 14:30 PM
#26
avatar of thedarkarmadillo

Posts: 5279

5 man ost squad suggestions are so over done. It makes for a good doctrinal ability because its contained but as a stock change the effects are endless.. 5 man puos would repair faster and build faster, lay mines faster ect. Also an extra model doesnt just increase durability against tanks but everything. It disperses damage more (5 men shooting at 4 men have 1 model always being targeted by 2 models at the very least) where 5 its more possible to be parity. More models for the medics to heal, more pop upkeep. What if they pick up a weapon? Now you have a cheap and durable unit that also scouts AND has increased firepower. Give them KARs and you make weapons recrewed more potent at range as well as the increased los making them absolutely superior to anything else AND cheap

People think tacking on a model is simple but it echos. Especially in a faction designed SPECIFICALLY with small squads in mind. You take units designed to be squishy and make them not squishy and who knows what would happen! We know already actually... look at the jackson and the problems it causes. Its not like cons getting a model where you wre taking a squad thats identity is durability and making it more durable.
9 Mar 2020, 14:38 PM
#27
avatar of Esxile

Posts: 3602 | Subs: 1

5 man ost squad suggestions are so over done. It makes for a good doctrinal ability because its contained but as a stock change the effects are endless.. 5 man puos would repair faster and build faster, lay mines faster ect. Also an extra model doesnt just increase durability against tanks but everything. It disperses damage more (5 men shooting at 4 men have 1 model always being targeted by 2 models at the very least) where 5 its more possible to be parity. More models for the medics to heal, more pop upkeep. What if they pick up a weapon? Now you have a cheap and durable unit that also scouts AND has increased firepower. Give them KARs and you make weapons recrewed more potent at range as well as the increased los making them absolutely superior to anything else AND cheap

People think tacking on a model is simple but it echos. Especially in a faction designed SPECIFICALLY with small squads in mind. You take units designed to be squishy and make them not squishy and who knows what would happen! We know already actually... look at the jackson and the problems it causes. Its not like cons getting a model where you wre taking a squad thats identity is durability and making it more durable.


Just think sniper + 5 men grenadier squad. To bring the grenadier to 5 men squad you need to heavily nerf anything else Ostheer has to a point where people will just cry even more.


9 Mar 2020, 15:29 PM
#28
avatar of Sumi

Posts: 132

jump backJump back to quoted post9 Mar 2020, 07:50 AMVipper

My point is that if USF continue to have access to great support weapons Ostheer infatry will continue to receive buff.


jump backJump back to quoted post9 Mar 2020, 11:12 AMVipper

Check the world champion stats and see how many support weapons where build from USF.

And it does not matter who actually has better support weapons. The point is that Ostheer used to have an advantage in support weapon that cover their disadvantage in infatry.


Man you tripping? How do you negate your own quotes? Seriously if you don't stand by your own words and change topics like this you will be called a troll.

Also to answer your query as to why support weapons were built more, the reason is simple Ost infantry is far superior to US infantry (non-doctrinal) so US has to rely on support weapons to even the odds lol.

9 Mar 2020, 15:37 PM
#29
avatar of Sumi

Posts: 132




If the relic gives the Grens a one more model and gives them the same statistics as the Riflemans currently have, I honestly wouldn't mind if the mortar and the Pak (which I consider currently bad) receive a Nerf, and put the mg42 in t1.


Why would Relic give Grens one more model? Do you realize how unskilled or inexperienced you sound when you compare Axis infantry to allies and claim Axis infantry to be weaker?

Grens vs Infantry

240 vs 280 (1-0)
4 models vs 5 models (1-1)
Long range vs Medium range (2-2)
Rifle grenade vs Mk 2 grenade (needs research which costs MP and Fuel) (3-2)
Panzerfaust at 0 vet vs AT nades at vet 1 (4-2)
Free lmg upgrade vs Bars (needs SEPARATE research which costs MP and Fuel) (5-2)
More accuracy vs Less accuracy (6-2)
Can make bunkers vs can't make shit (not confident on this might have changed) (7-2)
can heal other units on frontline vs can't do shit (8-2)


All these above comparison was on non doctrinal basis, still think Riflemen are superior? Fire away. Also Idk how you got around how the Ost support weapons are superior when I did mention how US falls short.
9 Mar 2020, 15:40 PM
#30
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post9 Mar 2020, 15:29 PMSumi

Man you tripping? How do you negate your own quotes? Seriously if you don't stand by your own words and change topics like this you will be called a troll.

Learn to read more carefully and you might understand. There is nothing contradicting in what you have quote.

Let me explain this once last time:
Ostheer where design to have an advantage in support weapons and a disadvantage in infatry.
USF where designed to an advantage in infatry and limited access to support weapons.

Now USF have the similar access to good support weapons and that creates an imbalance vs Ostheer.

jump backJump back to quoted post9 Mar 2020, 15:29 PMSumi

Also to answer your query as to why support weapons were built more, the reason is simple Ost infantry is far superior to US infantry (non-doctrinal) so US has to rely on support weapons to even the odds lol.

Actually no, USF simply beat Ostheer. USF won of games 79% vs Ostheer.
9 Mar 2020, 16:32 PM
#31
avatar of Sumi

Posts: 132

jump backJump back to quoted post9 Mar 2020, 15:40 PMVipper

Learn to read more carefully and you might understand. There is nothing contradicting in what you have quote.

Let me explain this once last time:
Ostheer where design to have an advantage in support weapons and a disadvantage in infatry.
USF where designed to an advantage in infatry and limited access to support weapons.

Now USF have the similar access to good support weapons and that creates an imbalance vs Ostheer.


Actually no, USF simply beat Ostheer. USF won of games 79% vs Ostheer.


Do you understand the importance of Facts and Statistics? You are always quoting tournament win percentage, yes US might be more favorable against OST in 1v1 but that is not my point here, I am talking in general sense of how mostly each OST unit out-performs US unit regardless of its win percentage in tourneys.

Also how does the USF have advantage over OST units in infantry? Do you even read my comments, Ill post for it again for you, the basic starting units for both the factions>

Grens vs Riflemen

240 vs 280 (1-0)
4 models vs 5 models (1-1)
Long range vs Medium range (2-2)
Rifle grenade vs Mk 2 grenade (needs research which costs MP and Fuel) (3-2)
Panzerfaust at 0 vet vs AT nades at vet 1 (4-2)
Free lmg upgrade vs Bars (needs SEPARATE research which costs MP and Fuel) (5-2)
More accuracy vs Less accuracy (6-2)
Can make bunkers vs can't make shit (not confident on this might have changed) (7-2)
can heal other units on frontline vs can't do shit (8-2)
Now doctrinal
can upgrade with G42 which can be used to reveal opponent's units location vs m19191 browning
can be upgraded with 5 men vs no increase in squad size
can camouflage vs no again lol it is getting boring now



Pios vs RE
Close range vs med range (1-1)
190 Mp vs 200 Mp (2-1)
Teller and AI mines vs Tank stun (4-1)
Mg bunkers (5-2)
reinforcement and healing bunkers (6-2)
4 v 4(5 at vet 3) (6-2.5)
I believe I am forgetting something but idk what.

As for the Support weapons I guess you must have read my first comment comparing the Support weapons.

Also, OST is a complete faction unlike US which lacks sniper or non doctrinal arty but makes up for it with LV or pack howie. Conclusion being you can't go on forums and whine about things that you don't like, I have mentioned with stats how OST infantry is superior to US along with their Support weapons but you won't see me crying on forums of each and every post. Game is perfect as is, just fix the UKF faction and that'd be it.
9 Mar 2020, 16:37 PM
#32
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post9 Mar 2020, 16:32 PMSumi


Do you understand the importance of Facts and Statistics?...

Do your understand if what you wrote was actually correct Ostheer would be beating USF and not losing 4 out of 5 games?
9 Mar 2020, 16:43 PM
#33
avatar of T.R. Stormjäger

Posts: 3588 | Subs: 3

jump backJump back to quoted post9 Mar 2020, 15:37 PMSumi


Why would Relic give Grens one more model? Do you realize how unskilled or inexperienced you sound when you compare Axis infantry to allies and claim Axis infantry to be weaker?

Grens vs Infantry

240 vs 280 (1-0)
4 models vs 5 models (1-1)
Long range vs Medium range (2-2)
Rifle grenade vs Mk 2 grenade (needs research which costs MP and Fuel) (3-2)
Panzerfaust at 0 vet vs AT nades at vet 1 (4-2)
Free lmg upgrade vs Bars (needs SEPARATE research which costs MP and Fuel) (5-2)
More accuracy vs Less accuracy (6-2)
Can make bunkers vs can't make shit (not confident on this might have changed) (7-2)
can heal other units on frontline vs can't do shit (8-2)


All these above comparison was on non doctrinal basis, still think Riflemen are superior? Fire away. Also Idk how you got around how the Ost support weapons are superior when I did mention how US falls short.


Unless you blob Grens with LMGs against someone who doesn’t know how to use indirect fire (Pack, Scott, Calliope) then USF infantry will tear you a new a-hole. Riflemen are definitely the better mainline.
9 Mar 2020, 18:30 PM
#34
avatar of agustinveinte

Posts: 38

jump backJump back to quoted post9 Mar 2020, 15:37 PMSumi


Why would Relic give Grens one more model? Do you realize how unskilled or inexperienced you sound when you compare Axis infantry to allies and claim Axis infantry to be weaker?

Grens vs Infantry

240 vs 280 (1-0)
4 models vs 5 models (1-1)
Long range vs Medium range (2-2)
Rifle grenade vs Mk 2 grenade (needs research which costs MP and Fuel) (3-2)
Panzerfaust at 0 vet vs AT nades at vet 1 (4-2)
Free lmg upgrade vs Bars (needs SEPARATE research which costs MP and Fuel) (5-2)
More accuracy vs Less accuracy (6-2)
Can make bunkers vs can't make shit (not confident on this might have changed) (7-2)
can heal other units on frontline vs can't do shit (8-2)


All these above comparison was on non doctrinal basis, still think Riflemen are superior? Fire away. Also Idk how you got around how the Ost support weapons are superior when I did mention how US falls short.


Ho
Boy, you are very aggressive, did you have a bad day?
9 Mar 2020, 18:40 PM
#35
avatar of Alphrum

Posts: 808

jump backJump back to quoted post9 Mar 2020, 16:32 PMSumi


Do you understand the importance of Facts and Statistics? You are always quoting tournament win percentage, yes US might be more favorable against OST in 1v1 but that is not my point here, I am talking in general sense of how mostly each OST unit out-performs US unit regardless of its win percentage in tourneys.

Also how does the USF have advantage over OST units in infantry? Do you even read my comments, Ill post for it again for you, the basic starting units for both the factions>

Grens vs Riflemen

240 vs 280 (1-0)
4 models vs 5 models (1-1)
Long range vs Medium range (2-2)
Rifle grenade vs Mk 2 grenade (needs research which costs MP and Fuel) (3-2)
Panzerfaust at 0 vet vs AT nades at vet 1 (4-2)
Free lmg upgrade vs Bars (needs SEPARATE research which costs MP and Fuel) (5-2)
More accuracy vs Less accuracy (6-2)
Can make bunkers vs can't make shit (not confident on this might have changed) (7-2)
can heal other units on frontline vs can't do shit (8-2)
Now doctrinal
can upgrade with G42 which can be used to reveal opponent's units location vs m19191 browning
can be upgraded with 5 men vs no increase in squad size
can camouflage vs no again lol it is getting boring now



Pios vs RE
Close range vs med range (1-1)
190 Mp vs 200 Mp (2-1)
Teller and AI mines vs Tank stun (4-1)
Mg bunkers (5-2)
reinforcement and healing bunkers (6-2)
4 v 4(5 at vet 3) (6-2.5)
I believe I am forgetting something but idk what.

As for the Support weapons I guess you must have read my first comment comparing the Support weapons.

Also, OST is a complete faction unlike US which lacks sniper or non doctrinal arty but makes up for it with LV or pack howie. Conclusion being you can't go on forums and whine about things that you don't like, I have mentioned with stats how OST infantry is superior to US along with their Support weapons but you won't see me crying on forums of each and every post. Game is perfect as is, just fix the UKF faction and that'd be it.


my god what kinda nonsense did u just post. listen, i don't agree on grens getting 5th man, but to even suggest grens are better then riflemen, especially at the level your pointing at is ridiculous (8-2) pls. Riflemen are by far more superior then grens
9 Mar 2020, 18:56 PM
#36
avatar of thedarkarmadillo

Posts: 5279



Unless you blob Grens with LMGs against someone who doesn’t know how to use indirect fire (Pack, Scott, Calliope) then USF infantry will tear you a new a-hole. Riflemen are definitely the better mainline.

Which isnt unreasonable given cost disparities and utility of both units.
10 Mar 2020, 07:18 AM
#37
avatar of Sumi

Posts: 132

jump backJump back to quoted post9 Mar 2020, 16:37 PMVipper

Do your understand if what you wrote was actually correct Ostheer would be beating USF and not losing 4 out of 5 games?


Are you saying what I wrote was incorrect? If so then do correct me, I wouldn't have any problem learning something. Also, could you stop quoting the stats of 1v1 games? Like seriously you select the stats of what you want to say ignoring the rest. OST is dominant in 4v4,3v3,2v2 get that? The game won't bend to your whims, it is fine as it is right now.
10 Mar 2020, 07:21 AM
#38
avatar of Sumi

Posts: 132



Unless you blob Grens with LMGs against someone who doesn’t know how to use indirect fire (Pack, Scott, Calliope) then USF infantry will tear you a new a-hole. Riflemen are definitely the better mainline.



Lol I am amused comparing Grens and Riflemen with the same as pack, scott and calliope? None of the mentioned units are T0 or T1 smh, we are not talking about late game here.

Also I notice something funny, you claim US should use indirect fire to support infantry but claim Grens solo are weak lmao, talk about absurdity.
10 Mar 2020, 07:24 AM
#39
avatar of Sumi

Posts: 132



my god what kinda nonsense did u just post. listen, i don't agree on grens getting 5th man, but to even suggest grens are better then riflemen, especially at the level your pointing at is ridiculous (8-2) pls. Riflemen are by far more superior then grens



Is it nonsense, I apologize for putting trash on the internet, do correct me where I am wrong and then call it nonsense. Without providing any support to your statement and just straight calling out my facts nonsense makes you a troll. Also do let me know in which areas riflemen outshine Grens pls.Prove the (8-2) wrong, I would love to learn something new.
10 Mar 2020, 07:25 AM
#40
avatar of Sumi

Posts: 132



Ho
Boy, you are very aggressive, did you have a bad day?


Nahh just the usual troll demolishing mode to bring calm and peace across this beautiful land of coh2.org.
PAGES (3)down
1 user is browsing this thread: 1 guest

Livestreams

Germany 1
unknown 1
unknown 1

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

662 users are online: 662 guests
0 post in the last 24h
12 posts in the last week
24 posts in the last month
Registered members: 49862
Welcome our newest member, IzabellafgBrewer
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM