Login

russian armor

Riflemen High time nerf.

Do the americans need a change?
Option Distribution Votes
39%
23%
3%
13%
23%
Total votes: 75
Vote VOTE! Vote ABSTAIN
27 Jul 2015, 15:10 PM
#1
avatar of Loki

Posts: 96

I have been playing axis exclusively for some time now. The simple facts are, riflemen are powerful. And they should be.

But the faction is self is suffering from lack of diversity early and mid game. I think relic is trying to be very careful with the Americans as to not giving them too much.

Right now they are really just lacking late game AT.

But if you look at the faction as a hole powerful rifle men are what is keeping everything from being good.
Commanders support infantry CANT BE GOOD it would give the American infantry too much power.
-That's all other infantry. Making them non combat units. They can not survive with out riflemen. creating a nasty necessity for riflemen....!!!

They cant have support weapons readily available because of, u know, riflemen.

So one the best commanders gives you the heavy weapons you already have. There not even cheaper. They don't come with a crew. I haven't done the research but.... do the best commanders in other army's have this trait? I think not.

In the end, It's not they need a nerf to be playable. It's that they need a nerf to actually be played when the brits come out.

So here is my solution.

TO:
Riflemen
RE's
Ambulance
.50 cal
M5(maybe)
$ATG

$T1:Lt
M20
Stuart
Motar

$$T2:Cap
flack track
GMC 75mm AT half track
Pack Howie

$$$T3:
M4
M36
M8

It might be wise to add a tier. Giving the player an option to have all of the things I just added. Also giving them the recourses to do so from the start of the game.

Look I know Iam just swinging at air here. But what is realistic? Do u think they will let the Americans drift in un playability? Is that most likely? If they were to make the Americans better what is the most likely case? Fuck if I know. I just love this game.
27 Jul 2015, 15:15 PM
#2
avatar of Katitof

Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8

Something in this thread is high, but its not the time.

You're attached ranks also are quite undeniable proof that your problem is exactly between chair and a keyboard, not in the balance section(which you still manages to miss).
27 Jul 2015, 15:29 PM
#3
avatar of Iron Emperor

Posts: 1653

Never seen a threat that was so crappy build before
27 Jul 2015, 15:33 PM
#4
avatar of Aerohank

Posts: 2693 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post27 Jul 2015, 15:15 PMKatitof

You're attached ranks also are quite undeniable proof that your problem is exactly between chair and a keyboard, not in the balance section(which you still manages to miss).


A bold claim for someone who feels the need to inject his opinion in every topic yet doesn't show his playercard. At least he shows his; you just spew your bile and hide your rank.

On topic:
As a 1v1 player, the USF faction is mostly fine in my opinion. However, on some maps where cover is scarce and points are easy to cover with HMGs, USF really struggle to deal with HMGs early on and I would thus like to have a mortar in T0.
27 Jul 2015, 15:34 PM
#5
avatar of JoeH

Posts: 88

jump backJump back to quoted post27 Jul 2015, 15:15 PMKatitof
Something in this thread is high, but its not the time.

You're attached ranks also are quite undeniable proof that your problem is exactly between chair and a keyboard, not in the balance section(which you still manages to miss).


Another insult towards a forum member making a suggestion. If you were only allowed to make suggestions when you are maxrank then most of the forum would be silent. Is there a reason you attack anyone making a suggestion?

I for one would support if some of the riflemens early power would get shifted into more variations, like a sniper which would help them better deal with those pesky mgs.
27 Jul 2015, 15:42 PM
#6
avatar of Unfinisheddonut
Donator 11

Posts: 77

jump backJump back to quoted post27 Jul 2015, 15:34 PMJoeH


Another insult towards a forum member making a suggestion. If you were only allowed to make suggestions when you are maxrank then most of the forum would be silent. Is there a reason you attack anyone making a suggestion?

I for one would support if some of the riflemens early power would get shifted into more variations, like a sniper which would help them better deal with those pesky mgs.


You're obviously not familiar with these threads then, every day, every minute, every second somebody posts a convoluted faction/unit rework. Most of them make absolutely no sense, and the posts are usually formatted makes anyone with the basic knowledge of Microsoft Word cry. I'm honestly surprised these threads arn't considered spam already. So people who are quick to reply something witty like that should be excuse.
27 Jul 2015, 15:46 PM
#7
avatar of VonIvan

Posts: 2487 | Subs: 21

Yeah lets nerf riflemen.
27 Jul 2015, 15:48 PM
#8
avatar of Shell_yeah

Posts: 258

Some nice suggestions in the poll, but cant choose anything right now, still not sure how I want to call you, a fool, an idiot, twat or dumbass. :sibToxic:

kek
27 Jul 2015, 15:55 PM
#9
avatar of SwonVIP
Donator 11

Posts: 640

jump backJump back to quoted post27 Jul 2015, 15:10 PMLoki

$T1:Lt
M20
Stuart
Motar


Stuart T1? :luvDerp:
Dont know if this is a good idea...

USF needs a mortar in T0 against Ostheer MGs and they are fine imo
27 Jul 2015, 15:56 PM
#10
avatar of comm_ash
Patrion 14

Posts: 1194 | Subs: 1

I don't understand why people think USF needs such a broad rework. USF needs 1 thing, a T0 mortar to let them spam smoke without delaying tech and their own weapon upgrades.

USF isn't some faction that is nigh hopeless like old stock Soviets, it is very close to being a well rounded faction. All it needs is a way to reliably counter the MG42 without bleeding munitions out the ass.

Well, that and maybe the reversion of the Ostheer 80 mp extra mp.
27 Jul 2015, 15:57 PM
#11
avatar of Katitof

Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8



A bold claim for someone who feels the need to inject his opinion in every topic yet doesn't show his playercard. At least he shows his; you just spew your bile and hide your rank.


On topic:
As a 1v1 player, the USF faction is mostly fine in my opinion. However, on some maps where cover is scarce and points are easy to cover with HMGs, USF really struggle to deal with HMGs early on and I would thus like to have a mortar in T0.

You know how to use google I assume?
I'm not hiding under different nick.

And I also agree that T0 mortar would be a step in right direction.
Need to side tech and pay 25 fuel just to counter menpower only T0 unit screams that something is not right here.

Another idea that flashed literally seconds ago in my head is to make fighting position cost only 50 mp and slap the cost of 75mp/60mun for MG upgrade or just scrap MG upgrade at all to open possibilities for actual use of RET FP Rnades.
27 Jul 2015, 16:17 PM
#12
avatar of Nickbn

Posts: 89 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post27 Jul 2015, 15:15 PMKatitof
Something in this thread is high, but its not the time.

You're attached ranks also are quite undeniable proof that your problem is exactly between chair and a keyboard, not in the balance section(which you still manages to miss).


Your assumption about having a low rank which in your opinion revokes the right to be knowledgeable on a subject is undeniable proof of subjective and detractive reasoning. Don't play the man Katitof, play the topic post. And if you insist on this practice for future posts: As Aerohank pointed out validly, before you spew your reasoning on others, make sure yours is ironclad. Currently it's not even near a leaky sponge.




27 Jul 2015, 16:28 PM
#13
avatar of Aerohank

Posts: 2693 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post27 Jul 2015, 15:57 PMKatitof

You know how to use google I assume?
I'm not hiding under different nick.


I did use google but I found it hard to believe the result. I got a player card of a player who hasn't even played 100 1v1 games. I wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt because I just found it hard to believe that someone would post so much while having so little experience with the game. You barely finished your placement matches with the WFA factions and your overall low game count indicates that you have basically no experience playing any of the recent updates for more than a handful of games. What the hell are you doing picking on other peoples playing cards when you do not even play?
27 Jul 2015, 16:40 PM
#14
avatar of Katitof

Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8

Feel free to compare his 2v2 ranks to mine if that makes you feel better.
27 Jul 2015, 17:06 PM
#15
avatar of Khan

Posts: 578

jump backJump back to quoted post27 Jul 2015, 15:15 PMKatitof
Something in this thread is high, but its not the time.

You're attached ranks also are quite undeniable proof that your problem is exactly between chair and a keyboard, not in the balance section(which you still manages to miss).


Your*
27 Jul 2015, 17:32 PM
#16
avatar of Snipester
Patrion 39

Posts: 102

jump backJump back to quoted post27 Jul 2015, 16:40 PMKatitof
Feel free to compare his 2v2 ranks to mine if that makes you feel better.


Doesn't get much more :sibToxic: than this :facepalm: it doesn't matter what his rank is, at least he's trying to be constructive. You constantly turn threads into pissing contests over ranks, as if anyone cares. People of all ranks can have good ideas for balance.

@Loki

I appreciate your suggestions, but I don't think the USF need such drastic changes, however, you are definitely right about the USF needing some diversity. As mentioned earlier in the thread, a T0 mortar would likely help the USF in the early game. Late game, yes, their AT options are limited, but properly used Jacksons are very potent against heavy armor, especially when supported by an AT gun and/or P47's. Hence why Captain and Airborne are generally the go-to for USF.
27 Jul 2015, 17:47 PM
#17
avatar of BeefSurge

Posts: 1891

jump backJump back to quoted post27 Jul 2015, 15:57 PMKatitof

You know how to use google I assume?
I'm not hiding under different nick.

And I also agree that T0 mortar would be a step in right direction.
Need to side tech and pay 25 fuel just to counter menpower only T0 unit screams that something is not right here.

Another idea that flashed literally seconds ago in my head is to make fighting position cost only 50 mp and slap the cost of 75mp/60mun for MG upgrade or just scrap MG upgrade at all to open possibilities for actual use of RET FP Rnades.


Fighting position price buff is actually a really good idea. Maybe health nerf and faster build time too.

27 Jul 2015, 20:38 PM
#18
avatar of Vuther
Senior Moderator Badge

Posts: 3103 | Subs: 1



Fighting position price buff is actually a really good idea. Maybe health nerf and faster build time too.


Makeshift crappy mortar emplacement sounds hilarious

I want.
9 Aug 2015, 18:00 PM
#19
avatar of Junaid

Posts: 509

What OP meant: I think USF cant have a more diverse early game cause rifles are so powerful that adding mgs etc to t0 will make USF OP so rifles should be nerfed in exchange for more diverse early game.

What i see here: waah rank wank waah!

Constructive feedback kappa
9 Aug 2015, 18:13 PM
#20
avatar of daspoulos

Posts: 1116 | Subs: 1

Permanently Banned
do us all a favor, and put your ranks in your sig. To anybody who cares about rank.
0 user is browsing this thread:

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

1031 users are online: 1031 guests
0 post in the last 24h
8 posts in the last week
36 posts in the last month
Registered members: 49104
Welcome our newest member, zhcnwps
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM