Login

russian armor

Schwerer so broken, will it be fixed in the upcoming patch?

PAGES (19)down
19 Mar 2015, 02:43 AM
#321
avatar of Alexzandvar

Posts: 4951 | Subs: 1


Precisely. This "Indirect fire" thing is being parroted around by the standing members of the Axis Anti Nerf Committee, when they really mean to say is howitzers. The 120mm mortar also does wonders.
But this only applies to Soviets and 1/6th of US commanders. By the time I have significant indirect fire (howitzers or powerful offmaps), I will also have tanks, call-ins, AT guns. I don't need help at this phase. I want to know what to do about the Schwerer in minute 8 of the game.

And even so, let's say people use howitzers, AT guns, offmaps etc - so now we have used ammo, manpower, teching, fuel, all to remove a structure from the battlefield. What about opportunity costs? While you are investing resources and time, I assume the OKW enemy is kind enough to have units of comparable manpower cost simply idle around and do nothing? When I build a T4 as Soviet, it does not present an inconvenience on the map and OKW doesn't have to allocate resources just to remove it or lose access to a portion of the map.

I will remind you that Sov tier buildings are more expensive, offer about the same in terms of unlocked units, but none of the advantages. Trying to pass a forward HQ, a fortification and a repair center as a weakness instead of an immense strength of the faction is asinine. Nothing prevents you from putting all your buildings at the base just as every other faction has to, and still have a more useful, cheaper base, with inbuilt repair and medic functions. Literally anything you do beyond that is a bonus, an OPTION, a glorious possibility that you have that no other faction has. If you choose to use this option, you enter the realm of risk/reward mechanic. Except the risk is relatively small, and the rewards immense. Worst case scenario - the building goes down. So? you lost roughly a Puma's worth of resources to occupy a significant portion of opponent's firepower for a prolonged period of time.

Now, I personally like the different flavours of each faction, and it's nice to have OKW differ in this aspect. But you can't really complain about forward positions being exposed to artillery. Yes, we know they are. It's because you choose to put them there even though you could have put them in the base and still be no worse than all other factions.


This entire argument is negated by the fact Relic buffed all 3 of the trucks to discourge players from placing them outside the HQ sector.

They aren't meant to be placed in the HQ sector, they shouldn't even have the option of being able to. The entire point of OKW is the truck/HQ system being unique, why the fuck do people want to turn OKW into Ostheer with a fuel penalty?

And USF has the best artillery call ins in the game, use them. Don't deliberately ignore the tools you are given then bitch when you feel like you have nothing. The 75 howitzer is bleh, but usable, the Priest works quite well and can be pop cap abused and negates the stuka bombing strike.

Christ on a cracker there is no "Anti nerf" committee, there is no axis conspiracy, there are counters in the game for OKW and the fact you don't use them is on you, not us.
19 Mar 2015, 03:10 AM
#322
avatar of AssaultPlazma

Posts: 300

Sorry but the priest is a late game doctrinal call in, and for the billionth time

REQUIRING A DOCTRINE TO EFFECTIVE/PRACTICALLY COUNTER IS AN ADMISSION OF IMBALANCE IN OF ITSELF. YOU SHOULD NOT HAVE TO RELY ON A CALL IN UNIT TO EFFECTIVELY COUNTER SOMETHING STOCK ON THE OTHER SIDE!
19 Mar 2015, 03:26 AM
#323
avatar of Alexzandvar

Posts: 4951 | Subs: 1

I guess we should just remove soviets from the game because they are entirely designed around using doctrinal units.

Oh wait that's exactly the reason Soviets preform so well.

Everything about the Schwer has already been said, it shouldn't pen medium tanks but otherwise it's fine. If you can't kill it that's on you.

Use 2 pathfinder artillery call in's an it's instantly dead and he can't do anything about it, or use time on target, or hit it with an AT gun, ect.

19 Mar 2015, 03:40 AM
#324
avatar of AssaultPlazma

Posts: 300

I guess we should just remove soviets from the game because they are entirely designed around using doctrinal units.

Oh wait that's exactly the reason Soviets preform so well.

Everything about the Schwer has already been said, it shouldn't pen medium tanks but otherwise it's fine. If you can't kill it that's on you.

Use 2 pathfinder artillery call in's an it's instantly dead and he can't do anything about it, or use time on target, or hit it with an AT gun, ect.



Still waiting on you to provide a link to the relic developer who stated soviets were deisgned with being call in dependent in mind; If removing from the game then rebuilding is what it takes than sure....

Oh and curious what does the soviet call in meta have to do with USF call in usage?

No one is arguing that it cant be killed, everyones wondering why it exist in the first place. That being omni-directional AI and AT massed area denial that simply comes from teching and takes absurd amount of effort to destroy?
19 Mar 2015, 03:58 AM
#325
avatar of Alexzandvar

Posts: 4951 | Subs: 1



Still waiting on you to provide a link to the relic developer who stated soviets were deisgned with being call in dependent in mind; If removing from the game then rebuilding is what it takes than sure....

Oh and curious what does the soviet call in meta have to do with USF call in usage?

No one is arguing that it cant be killed, everyones wondering why it exist in the first place. That being omni-directional AI and AT massed area denial that simply comes from teching and takes absurd amount of effort to destroy?


It's exists because Relic wanted to exist because OKW is a faction that is different from the other factions because it would be a tad boring for every faction to be the same. OKW focus's on truck based teching ----> all WFA techs give a bonus ----> OKW truck teching gives you a bonus in the form of forward retreat point/area denial/repairs and conversion.

And if you don't believe Relic sad it, then just look at all the call ins soviet commanders give. There is over twice the amount of call in unis for Soviets than any other faction.
19 Mar 2015, 04:42 AM
#326
avatar of easierwithaturret

Posts: 247


If you choose to use this option, you enter the realm of risk/reward mechanic. Except the risk is relatively small, and the rewards immense.


I was going to write something regarding this but then you've already covered it. The concept behind the OKW trucks is alright (even if I'm not a fan personally), it's just that at the moment the risk-reward relationship isn't quite right. The Schwerer HQ doesn't need a big nerf, a reduction in penetration and either its suppression or anti-air capabilities is all that is needed.

I feel like this thread is going in circles...
19 Mar 2015, 05:23 AM
#327
avatar of Omega_Warrior

Posts: 2561



It's exists because Relic wanted to exist because OKW is a faction that is different from the other factions because it would be a tad boring for every faction to be the same. OKW focus's on truck based teching ----> all WFA techs give a bonus ----> OKW truck teching gives you a bonus in the form of forward retreat point/area denial/repairs and conversion.

And if you don't believe Relic sad it, then just look at all the call ins soviet commanders give. There is over twice the amount of call in unis for Soviets than any other faction.
This argument is stupid when you realize peter said they were changing the soviets so they weren't dependent on call-ins. Just because that's the way it is currently, doesn't mean that they believe that's the way it should be. Especially when they specifically say it isn't.
19 Mar 2015, 06:51 AM
#328
avatar of QueenRatchet123

Posts: 2280 | Subs: 2

Permanently Banned
This argument is stupid when you realize peter said they were changing the soviets so they weren't dependent on call-ins. Just because that's the way it is currently, doesn't mean that they believe that's the way it should be. Especially when they specifically say it isn't.


Source?
19 Mar 2015, 07:03 AM
#329
avatar of Alexzandvar

Posts: 4951 | Subs: 1

This argument is stupid when you realize peter said they were changing the soviets so they weren't dependent on call-ins. Just because that's the way it is currently, doesn't mean that they believe that's the way it should be. Especially when they specifically say it isn't.


To bad Peter doesn't work at Relic anymore.

The chance of Soviets receiving a radical redesign is exactly zero, they would buff the stock units but that's about it.
19 Mar 2015, 07:19 AM
#330
avatar of pigsoup
Patrion 14

Posts: 4301 | Subs: 2

yep. since when peter was the only member of balance team.
19 Mar 2015, 07:22 AM
#331
avatar of Alexzandvar

Posts: 4951 | Subs: 1

I'm still blown away people think a radical redesign is going to happen because Relic has never in their history done so. They have some fairly radical changes but never reworked the entire core mechanic of an army.

The biggest thing I could see them doing is maybe getting rid of OKW's fuel penalty, but like hell will they ever remove the truck system.
19 Mar 2015, 07:24 AM
#332
avatar of JohnnyB

Posts: 2396 | Subs: 1



Now, I personally like the different flavours of each faction, and it's nice to have OKW differ in this aspect. But you can't really complain about forward positions being exposed to artillery. Yes, we know they are. It's because you choose to put them there even though you could have put them in the base and still be no worse than all other factions.


I fully agree with these sentences. I never complained it's so hard to use forward retreat points, and they are contributing to army's "flavor". What I said is that we should not exagerate their utility to the point we label them as OP or game breaking.
19 Mar 2015, 07:27 AM
#333
avatar of JohnnyB

Posts: 2396 | Subs: 1



To bad Peter doesn't work at Relic anymore.

The chance of Soviets receiving a radical redesign is exactly zero, they would buff the stock units but that's about it.


Umm... pardon me, but I fail to understand why the hell people are so displeased with soviet build. So they are call-in dependant. So what? They are the best army in COH2 right now, have all the options you can think of and counters for everything. Ostheer would pay gold to have such power.
19 Mar 2015, 08:21 AM
#334
avatar of Katitof

Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8

jump backJump back to quoted post19 Mar 2015, 07:27 AMJohnnyB


Umm... pardon me, but I fail to understand why the hell people are so displeased with soviet build. So they are call-in dependant. So what? They are the best army in COH2 right now, have all the options you can think of and counters for everything. Ostheer would pay gold to have such power.


So that it means 80% of doctrines are screaming "I'm going to loose" or "you are so bad at this game that I can beat you with partisans/tank hunters/NKVD/con support/whatever".

And soviets stand up in current meta almost exclusively because of armor and infantry call-ins.

Soviets are meant to SUPPLEMENT TIERING CHOICES WITH DOCTRINES(I went T1? I suppose I need guards/M-42/120mm to fill the gap, I went T3? I'll probably need heavy armor to hold off or break through).
Not to REPLACE STOCK UNITS WITH DOCTRINAL ONES BECAUSE FIRST ONES SUCK DONKEY BALLS(tiering? Why? There is nothing there that would justify spending even 10 fuel for that, doctrines provide all what tiering does, but better and more cost effective, snipers and AT guns being often mandatory exceptions).
19 Mar 2015, 08:27 AM
#335
avatar of Omega_Warrior

Posts: 2561



Source?
Second to last stream with peter, I think he repeated himself a little in the last one too. i'm not exactly sure when he said it and I'm not searching through the whole video right now.

When he was asked about changing the call in meta, he replied saying that they would first have to fix soviets since they rely on it so heavely, and that they would do this by making nondoctrinal troops more enticing. By his connotation it seems like they were working on something with the soviets and I doubt that they just dropped it after he left.
19 Mar 2015, 08:58 AM
#336
avatar of Trubbbel

Posts: 721

I'm still blown away people think a radical redesign is going to happen because Relic has never in their history done so.

And which games previously have conducted radical redesigns instead of making a new game? And it makes perfect sense too.
19 Mar 2015, 09:10 AM
#337
avatar of JohnnyB

Posts: 2396 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post19 Mar 2015, 08:21 AMKatitof


So that it means 80% of doctrines are screaming "I'm going to loose" or "you are so bad at this game that I can beat you with partisans/tank hunters/NKVD/con support/whatever".

And soviets stand up in current meta almost exclusively because of armor and infantry call-ins.

Soviets are meant to SUPPLEMENT TIERING CHOICES WITH DOCTRINES(I went T1? I suppose I need guards/M-42/120mm to fill the gap, I went T3? I'll probably need heavy armor to hold off or break through).
Not to REPLACE STOCK UNITS WITH DOCTRINAL ONES BECAUSE FIRST ONES SUCK DONKEY BALLS(tiering? Why? There is nothing there that would justify spending even 10 fuel for that, doctrines provide all what tiering does, but better and more cost effective, snipers and AT guns being often mandatory exceptions).


So basically you rant because of soviet faction build. Waaa... I don't like it. So what? That doesn't mean soviet faction is not powerful. It doesn't mean that they cannot crush any Axis army/combo. They have answers to everything, they just need to pick the right doctrine when the time comes. So the simple argument - I don't like this because... I don't like it - it's not going to work. Try some Ostheer games and see what the other way means and see if you "like it". Oh shore, you have options, you can make beautifull combos, hundreds of tactics and in the end.... you lose. Just lol.
19 Mar 2015, 09:14 AM
#338
avatar of Katitof

Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8

jump backJump back to quoted post19 Mar 2015, 09:10 AMJohnnyB


So basically you rant because of soviet faction build. Waaa... I don't like it. So what? That doesn't mean soviet faction is not powerful. It doesn't mean that they cannot crush any Axis army/combo. They have answers to everything, they just need to pick the right doctrine when the time comes. So the simple argument - I don't like this because... I don't like it - it's not going to work. Try some Ostheer games and see what the other way means and see if you "like it". Oh shore, you have options, you can make beautifull combos, hundreds of tactics and in the end.... you lose. Just lol.

19 Mar 2015, 09:15 AM
#339
avatar of JohnnyB

Posts: 2396 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post19 Mar 2015, 09:14 AMKatitof




:lolol:

That was funny, realy.
19 Mar 2015, 12:07 PM
#340
avatar of drChengele
Patrion 14

Posts: 640 | Subs: 1

Christ on a cracker there is no "Anti nerf" committee, there is no axis conspiracy, there are counters in the game for OKW and the fact you don't use them is on you, not us.
Funny. That sounds EXACTLY like what a member of a hidden axis conspiracy kabal would say.
PAGES (19)down
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

440 users are online: 440 guests
0 post in the last 24h
5 posts in the last week
33 posts in the last month
Registered members: 49184
Welcome our newest member, Eastman04
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM