Posts: 109
Funny enough, but USF has Inf Company which provides LMGs, sandbags, mortar and arty or Tactical Support which also provide LMG, forward reinforcement platform and Cali. Covering pretty much rifles problem on open long range maps, yet high ranks still prefers pathfinder abuse.
Its not about rifles performance like at all. Its this:
Posts: 1220 | Subs: 1
Do you agree with the claim:
"USF mortar is by far the weakest and usually just behaves as a pop eater," ?
Posts: 1220 | Subs: 1
Posts: 3114 | Subs: 2
Ah, as infantry coy and tac support coy is mentioned. I'm very curious on why m1919 cost 70 ammo and 1 commander slot while still being like this
Posts: 176
Those two weapons are about 4-5% in DPS apart.
I assume because you put it on a 5 men squad, allowing you to keep the weapon for longer in the fight while investing similar population.
The commander slow also allows you to skip or heavily delay the weapon rack upgrade.
Posts: 682
Posts: 1289
They do not have a harder time to defend positions because Ostheer are bad at attacking.
Try attacking with grenadiers from out of cover vs riflemen in cover and see what happens.
there is more then one axis faction. Try to broaden your approach or use context and see what happens
But that is besides the point riflemen are much more flexible when it comes to fighting having decent DPS at all ranges and thus it is not "the enemy dictates the fight in by far most cases"
the larger the maps are the bigger the problem as they are laney and open, sandbags plus long range mainlines dont agree, as its quite easy to hunker down and bleed inf on appraoch from behind cover when there is limited to no flanking available. Even then mg's or sturms can cover that. In bigger modes going around is not a real option.
USF mortar is in line with other mortars and it will bleed the enemy unless he can fire back.
wich is a bit easier to do as as it has shorter range, again not sayings its bad. Just imho the usf stock opening line-up isent suited for bigger modes. Getting bled out is a big problem. This happens because they dont get things i mentioned before as stock unlike other factions
Destroying a ambulance in a 3vs3 or 4vs4 in the early game is not easy at all.
never said it was, mobility is a great strength but if threatend it is the easiest to destroy. Even in base its the easiest to destroy
OKW float mp only when/if they are starving for fuel (and even then mostly because they can not build cashes like other factions).
that explains 200 to 400 mp float. The rest (in bigger modes) comes from no bleed kubel with good sight, inf that can deploy their own cover, selfheal and having mostly long range inf. All of wich usf needs doctrines for.
Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1
the larger the maps are the bigger the problem as they are laney and open, sandbags plus long range mainlines dont agree, as its quite easy to hunker down and bleed inf on appraoch from behind cover when there is limited to no flanking available. Even then mg's or sturms can cover that. In bigger modes going around is not a real option.
(OKW float Manpower because of) selfheal
Posts: 682
Posts: 1116 | Subs: 1
Yes, vet 5 volks and vet 3 obers save enough mp to build a kt through self healing 😂
Posts: 1289
Playing passively is a defensive position does not describe "dictating the fight" on the contrary.
if you cant go around or flank they set the terms. So i have to disagree here
Seriously...
please read for once. Did i say only because of self heal? Or did i mention other factors?
Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1
if you cant go around or flank they set the terms. So i have to disagree here
please read for once. Did i say only because of self heal? Or did i mention other factors?
Posts: 1197
What I really don't understand is how people expect USF to play properly if every single f*cking unit the faction uses to play on an even field with axis units is nerfed until it's not scary any more.
I would never subject myself to the torture that is playing stock USF against ANY faction.
Seriously though, I do see the issues with paths. Just unfuck the faction. Seriously. Make the paths not a combat unit, sure, whatever. But give USF something in return. Make paras come earlier with their upgrades locked, I don't know.
EDIT: In fact, I haven't played USF AT ALL ever since I started playing SOV just because of how incredibly un-fun it is to get beat back by Panthers and panzergrens and lmg grens and just have NOTHING to contend against them with. If you pick the wrong doctrine or god forbid you try to pick a FUN doctrine, you're on a timer to just lose the game. It's as simple as that.
Posts: 1289
You have the right to disagree, but they some can be said for USF they can also play defensively/passively if they want, so there is something wrong with that theory.
As I have ready pointed out the more flexible someone is the easier it is to "dictate the fight".
i have to disagree with the later bit as well, in the past soviet where also more flexible and utility oriented and ost was specialized. They struggled even more in big games vs ost to the point that certain doctrines where mandatory to even stand a chance. Usf is in a simaler situation now.
Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1
i have to disagree with the later bit as well, in the past soviet where also more flexible and utility oriented and ost was specialized. They struggled even more in big games vs ost to the point that certain doctrines where mandatory to even stand a chance. Usf is in a simaler situation now.
Posts: 3114 | Subs: 2
You have the right to disagree, but all that is irrelevant to Pathfinder/Ambulance and no there are very few similarities between USF and Soviets.
And USF have better win-rates than other allied factions both 1vs1 and 3vs3 so they do not seem to struggle.
And once more flexible units allow players to "dictate the fight" easier.
 |
|
|
82 | ||
 |
|
|
44 | ||
|
|
|
|
42 | ||
|
|
|
|
35 | ||
|
|
|
|
24 | ||
 |
|
|
13 | ||
|
|
|
|
562 | ||
 |
|
|
78 | ||
 |
|
|
31 | ||
|
|
|
|
18 |
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
