Login

russian armor

Commander Update Beta 2021 - USF Feedback

PAGES (44)down
12 Apr 2021, 18:36 PM
#321
avatar of IntoTheRain

Posts: 179



I'm sorry but that's bollocks. It means "no longer" or "nothing further", according to the Oxford dictionary.


His follow up makes it very clear he wants LMGs gone from USF.
12 Apr 2021, 18:36 PM
#322
avatar of pvtgooner

Posts: 359



His follow up makes it very clear he wants LMGs gone from USF.


Thank you.
12 Apr 2021, 18:36 PM
#323
avatar of Sander93

Posts: 3166 | Subs: 6

His follow up makes it very clear he wants LMGs gone from USF.


What follow up? This one?
jump backJump back to quoted post12 Apr 2021, 17:56 PMVipper

And that was in response to suggestions to add M1919 to another commander.

The post did not mean to removed the M1919 from the commanders it already exist but not to add in more commanders.
12 Apr 2021, 18:37 PM
#324
avatar of JohnSmith

Posts: 1273



I'm sorry but that's bollocks. It means "no longer" or "nothing further", according to the Oxford dictionary.


Thanks for checking the dictionary. It clearly says "no more" means exist no longer, never again (etc) in the same dictionary. You need to check the full page of the proper dictionary and not the first hit that google spews out. https://www.lexico.com/definition/no_more

Also, "LMG no further" equally means "no more LMGS" which means "LMGs exist no longer"

Vipper and her follow up, before changing her opinion, clearly and without doubt said she wanted LMGs gone from every USF troops because Axis can't have them.
12 Apr 2021, 18:37 PM
#325
avatar of pvtgooner

Posts: 359

jump backJump back to quoted post8 Apr 2021, 21:57 PMVipper

Because of relative positioning, mainlines of each faction are designed to trade optimal in certain range.

For the same reason axis mainline infatry should not have an upgrade that allowed them to beat double bar riflemen at mid range.


No it was this one actually. His response to "why shouldnt USF have LMGs?"
12 Apr 2021, 18:42 PM
#327
avatar of IntoTheRain

Posts: 179



What follow up? This one?


jump backJump back to quoted post7 Apr 2021, 16:48 PMVipper


No more LMG on USF troops pls.

M1 C is not would be a upgrade to Garands with better far DPS not a scoped Carbine.

If I am not mistaken they should already exist in the game.
(maybe this weapon m1a1_carbine_rifleman_spec_mp I am not sure)


jump backJump back to quoted post8 Apr 2021, 21:57 PMVipper

Because of relative positioning, mainlines of each faction are designed to trade optimal in certain range.

For the same reason axis mainline infatry should not have an upgrade that allowed them to beat double bar riflemen at mid range.


There is no other way to read this other than LMGs shouldn't exist because it allows them to trade effectively with Axis mainlines at longer ranges.
12 Apr 2021, 18:42 PM
#328
avatar of Sander93

Posts: 3166 | Subs: 6

Yeah, someone can actually think a certain upgrade or ability is bad, but take the current implementation for granted because it's obvious that's not going to change, and instead advocate that at least it shouldn't be made more available to limit the amount of (bad) influence it has on the game. Is that really so hard to understand?
12 Apr 2021, 18:44 PM
#329
avatar of JohnSmith

Posts: 1273

What YOU say is clear. And I agree with you I don't want to see the m1919 on other commanders, but Vipper wants it gone from everywhere because axis doesn't have such infantry upgrade. She made a very clear point about that.


Off topic : even marvel has the popular 'no more mutants' comic event if you want to read more about the use of the word 'no more' in popular US culture.
12 Apr 2021, 18:44 PM
#330
avatar of pvtgooner

Posts: 359

Yeah, someone can actually think a certain upgrade is bad, but take the current implantation for granted because it's obvious it's not going to change, and instead advocate that at least it shouldn't be made more available. Is that really so hard to understand?


Again, you've spent more time defending Vipper's comments in this thread, that are clearly and demonstrably about removing the LMG upgrade because "they shouldnt have something that allows them to trade at optimal range just like axis shouldnt have an upgrade that wins at mid range" instead of responding to all the people here(not even talking about myself) that have put a lot of time into feedback for your team to use.
12 Apr 2021, 18:50 PM
#331
avatar of Aarotron

Posts: 563

Clearly good choice would be to make lmg non doc so we could free up ability slot for 2 commanders and make stock usf more intresting.
12 Apr 2021, 18:50 PM
#332
avatar of pvtgooner

Posts: 359

Clearly good choice would be to make lmg non doc so we could free up ability slot for 2 commanders and make stock usf more intresting.


+1111111111111111111
12 Apr 2021, 18:53 PM
#333
avatar of Protos Angelus

Posts: 1515

jump backJump back to quoted post12 Apr 2021, 18:41 PMKoRneY


Did not read it as removing it entirely. Reading comprehension seems to vary amongst cultures.

And referring to a person as a female as some sort of loose insult went out of style a long time ago. Maybe when you founded a colony in virginia


To further derail this thread. I believe John has played with Vipper before and knows that she is in fact, a female human.
12 Apr 2021, 18:53 PM
#334
avatar of IntoTheRain

Posts: 179

Yeah, someone can actually think a certain upgrade or ability is bad, but take the current implementation for granted because it's obvious that's not going to change, and instead advocate that at least it shouldn't be made more available to limit the amount of (bad) influence it has on the game. Is that really so hard to understand?


If someone legitimately holds that opinion then I think thats fine.

But you are coming to the defense of someone who's opinion constantly changes and has no real basis or grounding. His opinions constantly shift and move to fit whatever narrative he wishes to spin today. He's not arguing in good faith and the mods and balance members here have continually shielded him from some very legitimate criticism.
12 Apr 2021, 18:53 PM
#335
avatar of KoRneY

Posts: 682

Make calliope non doc too. It'll give the pershing the support it needs
12 Apr 2021, 23:09 PM
#336
avatar of Interloper

Posts: 93

Again imagine if USF had units that had parity with Axis units. It would be righteous and the axis community would revolt.

Give USF stock access to:
1. A tank like the Panther that can perform dives and zip away with blitz
2. Rocket artillery that allows it to perform alpha strikes and wipe support units or groups of vetted LMG grens
3. RE squads that with effective positioning force grens to retreat in early battles
4. Stock AT/antipersonnel mines
5. Ability to heal units from a buildable structure that does not require fuel
6. A sniper unit
7. A mortar that has somewhat of decent vet 1 ability like OST mortar.
8. The choice to specialize riflemen for either long-range combat or MED to close-range combat
9. An assault tank that shrugs off AT Gun rounds and anti-tank fire and whittles down the hp of crew-served teams and infantry units allowing LMG/BAR rifles to clean up ahead of a Sherman or Jackson in pushes.

Just saying...

It would be super nice if USF had the right tools to be flexible and adaptive against Axis fractions without being forced into picking the couple of USF commanders that augment the stock units to give them the ability to win in the late game.

This will never happen as pointed out.
13 Apr 2021, 03:55 AM
#337
avatar of Ashmole

Posts: 61

Sherman 105 as a base faction tank with Pershing in the armor Company and Scott to the captain building. This is my dream.

Also wc151 in the recon support commander. My other dream that will not happen.
13 Apr 2021, 04:44 AM
#338
avatar of LMAO

Posts: 163

Again imagine if USF had units that had parity with Axis units. It would be righteous and the axis community would revolt.

Give USF stock access to:
1. A tank like the Panther that can perform dives and zip away with blitz
2. Rocket artillery that allows it to perform alpha strikes and wipe support units or groups of vetted LMG grens
3. RE squads that with effective positioning force grens to retreat in early battles
4. Stock AT/antipersonnel mines
5. Ability to heal units from a buildable structure that does not require fuel
6. A sniper unit
7. A mortar that has somewhat of decent vet 1 ability like OST mortar.
8. The choice to specialize riflemen for either long-range combat or MED to close-range combat
9. An assault tank that shrugs off AT Gun rounds and anti-tank fire and whittles down the hp of crew-served teams and infantry units allowing LMG/BAR rifles to clean up ahead of a Sherman or Jackson in pushes.

Just saying...

It would be super nice if USF had the right tools to be flexible and adaptive against Axis fractions without being forced into picking the couple of USF commanders that augment the stock units to give them the ability to win in the late game.

This will never happen as pointed out.

If that happen be ready to face non-trash axis infantry, I bet you will cry seeing 3 man squads mowing your riflemen
13 Apr 2021, 06:31 AM
#339
avatar of Tiger Baron

Posts: 3145 | Subs: 2

Again imagine if USF had units that had parity with Axis units. It would be righteous and the axis community would revolt.

Give USF stock access to:
1. A tank like the Panther that can perform dives and zip away with blitz
2. Rocket artillery that allows it to perform alpha strikes and wipe support units or groups of vetted LMG grens
3. RE squads that with effective positioning force grens to retreat in early battles
4. Stock AT/antipersonnel mines
5. Ability to heal units from a buildable structure that does not require fuel
6. A sniper unit
7. A mortar that has somewhat of decent vet 1 ability like OST mortar.
8. The choice to specialize riflemen for either long-range combat or MED to close-range combat
9. An assault tank that shrugs off AT Gun rounds and anti-tank fire and whittles down the hp of crew-served teams and infantry units allowing LMG/BAR rifles to clean up ahead of a Sherman or Jackson in pushes.

Just saying...

It would be super nice if USF had the right tools to be flexible and adaptive against Axis fractions without being forced into picking the couple of USF commanders that augment the stock units to give them the ability to win in the late game.

This will never happen as pointed out.


That goes both ways.

Just because your favorite faction was part of the WFA which were... weirdly designed doesn't make it right for them to be 1:1 with the EFA.

Plus people are gonna cry that they're too symmetrical and that's somehow a bad thing.

jump backJump back to quoted post13 Apr 2021, 03:55 AMAshmole
Sherman 105 as a base faction tank with Pershing in the armor Company and Scott to the captain building. This is my dream.

Also wc151 in the recon support commander. My other dream that will not happen.


I suggest you play the old CoH then, like me.

I love having my Pershing and Calliope combo there.
13 Apr 2021, 06:36 AM
#340
avatar of Support Sapper

Posts: 1220 | Subs: 1

Again, suggesting a carbine to be better than a full power rifle at far range is unrealistic and setting up rm for m1c garand is uneasy.

If m1919a6 is to be avoid in favor of an carbine upgrade, i suggest:

Light rifle squad upgrade:

45 muni to change all squad weapon to m1 carbine but with better close-mid dps and worse far dps than garand (carbine being better close-mid is way more reasonable than better at far). Upgrade take up 1 weapon slot and also unlock "Fire up"/"Spint". Upgrade replace fire up in rifle company.

Through this upgrade, fire up can still present in the commander but at the same time offer a better close range-aggressive weapon loadout to work with it.

PAGES (44)down
2 users are browsing this thread: 2 guests

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

1132 users are online: 1132 guests
1 post in the last 24h
11 posts in the last week
27 posts in the last month
Registered members: 50002
Welcome our newest member, rwintoday1
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM