Login

russian armor

Brace Yourselves!!!! Tank Hunter Tatics is comming.

8 Sep 2014, 00:06 AM
#61
avatar of Kallipolan

Posts: 196

PTRS on Conscripts seems like a good fit to me, since you aren't giving up too much AI (unlike PGrens, for example). I think this seems like an interesting doctine, and one which may actually be quite good in 1v1 considering that we expect the call-in system to be heavily overhauled. At the moment, Soviets are relying pretty heavily on call-ins to counter armour, and this doctrine seems to offer an alternative, low-tech option that is more flexible than AT guns.

At any rate, we'll have to see how it performs in-game, alongside whatever other balance changes are made.
8 Sep 2014, 00:42 AM
#62
avatar of NinjaWJ

Posts: 2070

jump backJump back to quoted post7 Sep 2014, 19:02 PMBurts



this game really does not need an su-100. Please no more jagtiger/elephant/isu-152 units.


Because thats what the su-100 would be, except it would have absolutely no weaknesses because it would also be very mobile.


An isu-122 could work tho. An is-2 with 60 range.


An Su-100 is just an upgunned SU85. Same weaknesses as SU85 which is lack of AI. an ISU122 is just an ISU152 with a lower caliber gun
8 Sep 2014, 03:40 AM
#63
avatar of Lucas Troy

Posts: 508

jump backJump back to quoted post7 Sep 2014, 13:15 PMwooof


well youre describing mechanized support and guard motor. not sure we need another commander with guards/mark/call in tank. everything in mechanized is already perfect for killing tanks.

i feel like this is another example of where some people complain that commanders are too similar. if they released tank hunters with 5 recycled abilities people would be upset, so they make a commander with 5 new abilties and people are asking for the old ones.



I'm not asking for 5 recycled abilities. It's just that I don't see how any of these five new ones are gonna be competitive with existing soviet commanders.

Now, if it was a zooka or stole Pshreck for cons, that'd be a different story. :P

Too early to pass judgement, of course, and I'll also be leaving that verdict up to people more knowledgeable about the game. :D Just skeptical, is all. I recant any premature judgement I made. It's really silly to assume the doctrine won't work before it's even released.

IMHO commanders being too similar IS a problem, but there's another problem along side that: many of them are simply not as good as others. Soviet defense and NKVD are good examples of this that I'm pretty sure everyone would agree on.



8 Sep 2014, 04:13 AM
#64
avatar of Greeb

Posts: 971

PTRS on Conscripts seems like a good fit to me, since you aren't giving up too much AI (unlike PGrens, for example). I think this seems like an interesting doctine, and one which may actually be quite good in 1v1 considering that we expect the call-in system to be heavily overhauled. At the moment, Soviets are relying pretty heavily on call-ins to counter armour, and this doctrine seems to offer an alternative, low-tech option that is more flexible than AT guns.


Yeah, I think that conscripts with PTRS can do really well against axis armor. My only issue is that lategame I don't know what can do that doctrine against a King Tiger, a Jadgtiger or such.
Non-doctrinal tanks currently are useless against those beasts, and PTRS, even spammed, will be useless too. Mark Vehicle will have fit perfectly with that doctrine.

Even so, the main problem I see to the doctrine is that without Guards or Shocks, axis doesn't really need armor to win. Schrecks, fausts, Paks and eventually a heavy tank are enought to rape all the T34/76 and SU85 soviets can make. Penals and conscripts should be really buffed to make this commander alluring.
8 Sep 2014, 04:34 AM
#65
avatar of braciszek

Posts: 2053

jump backJump back to quoted post8 Sep 2014, 04:13 AMGreeb


Penals and conscripts should be really buffed to make this commander alluring.


I can only agree.

I see this commander as an attempt to make Soviets work without the need of a callin tank AND callin infantry by supplying the mainline infantry with... SOME AT. I hope its better in practice than in paper.

What i found extremely unnerving is the sprint ability in encirclement doctrine. Holy cow, that will be VERY annoying for the enemy to see all Ostheer infantry sprinting around. However, pioneers can be slightly better assault infantry with this, and i bet the Ostheer Soviet will be used with this commander. A sprint ability will greatly increase the durability of the Ostheer sniper.
8 Sep 2014, 05:19 AM
#66
avatar of Katitof

Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8

PTRS on Conscripts seems like a good fit to me


Yea, horrible weapon upgrade suits well horrible infantry unit :foreveralone:
8 Sep 2014, 05:45 AM
#67
avatar of Strummingbird
Honorary Member Badge

Posts: 952 | Subs: 1



Yea, horrible weapon upgrade suits well horrible infantry unit :foreveralone:


30 munitions for two PTRS doesn't seem that bad at all, considering an AT grenade is 25 munitions and a single bazooka, somewhat better but not vastly superior to a PTRS, is 60. One squad could probably quite comfortably deal with a Puma, a flaktrack from green cover or over a tiny bump in terrain, and inside a building, a luchs, judging from what guards can do.
8 Sep 2014, 05:50 AM
#68
avatar of Katitof

Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8



30 munitions for two PTRS doesn't seem that bad at all, considering an AT grenade is 25 munitions and a single bazooka, somewhat better but not vastly superior to a PTRS, is 60. One squad could probably quite comfortably deal with a Puma, a flaktrack from green cover or over a tiny bump in terrain, and inside a building, a luchs, judging from what guards can do.


Well, on paper it doesn't sound that bad, but its yet another doctrine where you HAVE to spam snipers or maxims or gtfo.

You have no early game punch, you have no late game punch, you have no call-ins so you're forced to rely on sub par tanks, PTRS upgrade arrives 50% later then guards, so you will not be able to use it against light vehicle in period where most of them will be reigning supreme.

To be honest, I'd much rather have 3PTRS partisans then 2PTRS cons that again arrive much later. Pair that up with horribly long aim time and no button(thou AT nades might somewhat make up for that as they do for AT partisans) and we have a "look, I can beat you with anything" type commander again. Lulz will be assured thanks to this commander, but I can't see it being competitive.

You'll get this upgrade only just before medium armor arrives and OKW armor will dominate you by the time you'll have PTRS if you skip T2, so we're back to Maxim against OKW and snipers against wehr. Difference is, instead of Guards that actually scale and can fight we have cons that will do somewhat OK against armor and be utterly murdered by anything stronger then pioneers/osttruppen and I'm not sure about osttruppen here.
8 Sep 2014, 06:05 AM
#69
avatar of Strummingbird
Honorary Member Badge

Posts: 952 | Subs: 1

What Katitof said


True, but that's more of the problem with the soviets having other really good (or better) doctrines and needing those doctrineal abilities against german doctrines, and bad soviet stock infantry. The actual PTRS package seems decent enough which is what I was getting at, though as you say it could probably do with lower CPs.

AT nades + PTRS and oorah wouldn't be bad at all maps with lots of garrison cover, I think. Soviet nondoc armor with AT nades and mines is perfectly adequate fighting Wehr nondoc armor (for now, with T4 being a nonfactor), so there's that too. OKW is a different story entirely, though given the propensity for puma spam as the counter to T34s and the like this doctrine might be of value.

Probably Almost certainly doesn't hold a candle to guards+callin doctrines (guard motor and mech support, I'm looking at you), but that's another matter entirely.

Also I don't see conscripts with PTRS beating pioneers. They'd still beat osttruppen though, since combat engineers do that.
8 Sep 2014, 06:44 AM
#70
avatar of Omega_Warrior

Posts: 2561

I don't think the PTRS is that bad. Considering conscripts just become dedicated AT nades anyway, I don't see the harm in giving them a little more AT punch. 30 munis is pretty cheap anyway.
8 Sep 2014, 12:30 PM
#71
avatar of van Voort
Honorary Member Badge

Posts: 3552 | Subs: 2

Except they cannot run to throw grenades and use the PTRS at the same time...
8 Sep 2014, 12:54 PM
#72
avatar of NinjaWJ

Posts: 2070

Tank Hunter tactics will be broken for Soviets. Conscripts already get merge and oorah. THis is just too OP. Way too much utility
8 Sep 2014, 12:56 PM
#73
avatar of van Voort
Honorary Member Badge

Posts: 3552 | Subs: 2

Someone with more talent than me needs to go into the memethread.


Take some Mortal Kombat image and replace "Fatality" with "Utility"


Or not
8 Sep 2014, 13:01 PM
#74
avatar of Cruzz

Posts: 1221 | Subs: 41

Conscripts: You can't spell futility without utility
8 Sep 2014, 13:05 PM
#75
avatar of braciszek

Posts: 2053

jump backJump back to quoted post8 Sep 2014, 13:01 PMCruzz
Conscripts: You can't spell futility without utility


They may not be able to fight anything without getting slaughtered, but at least they can merge with another conscript squad one vet rank higher than their own rank.

Merge OP, much win games.
8 Sep 2014, 13:07 PM
#76
avatar of van Voort
Honorary Member Badge

Posts: 3552 | Subs: 2

Well it worked for Voltron
8 Sep 2014, 13:43 PM
#77
avatar of NinjaWJ

Posts: 2070

in all seriousness though.... maybe these commanders will be good in team games; they look like they can be a good support commander. Encirclement doctrine looks a little better though...

weird that the game is set in 1944.... germans basically had no more offensive capability to perform huge encirclements like 1941
8 Sep 2014, 14:22 PM
#78
avatar of Greeb

Posts: 971

PTRS for conscripts are a fantastic upgrade.
But the commander lacks infantry to fight Obers, JLI, Falls, Grens w/LMG, PGrens, etc, and heavy tanks to fight Tigers, King Tigers, Jadgtiers, etc.

A commader specialized in fighting halftracks and medium tanks is just terrible for game modes above 1vs1.
8 Sep 2014, 14:24 PM
#79
avatar of NinjaWJ

Posts: 2070

I wish the PTRS came at CP2. Cp3 seems a little late. can't say anything for now but THT does not look like it can perform endgame.

I definitely agree with your points greeb throughout the thread
8 Sep 2014, 16:08 PM
#80
avatar of VonIvan

Posts: 2487 | Subs: 21

jump backJump back to quoted post8 Sep 2014, 14:22 PMGreeb
PTRS for conscripts are a fantastic upgrade.
But the commander lacks infantry to fight Obers, JLI, Falls, Grens w/LMG, PGrens, etc, and heavy tanks to fight Tigers, King Tigers, Jadgtiers, etc.

A commader specialized in fighting halftracks and medium tanks is just terrible for game modes above 1vs1.

You'd be surprised what 10 conscripts all upgraded with PTRS and AT nades can do when supporting armor/pushing on the battlefield for 2v2 and above. (I'll admit they're not the best vs AI on their own, but when supported by another player it's a different story)
1 user is browsing this thread: 1 guest

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

428 users are online: 428 guests
1 post in the last 24h
9 posts in the last week
27 posts in the last month
Registered members: 48810
Welcome our newest member, Laugh461
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM