snip
Those are changes that affect 1v1 as well. My point stands, deal with it in team games or play 1v1.
Posts: 254
snip
Posts: 747 | Subs: 2
Those are changes that affect 1v1 as well. My point stands, deal with it in team games or play 1v1.
Posts: 2115 | Subs: 1
Who builds the caches in 1vs1 for OKW? Who gets 2 KTs in 1vs1?
Posts: 254
Who builds the caches in 1vs1 for OKW? Who gets 2 KTs in 1vs1?
Posts: 959
Changes for OKW:
- Remove Munitions to Fuel Conversion
This has been bugging me for over a year since WFA came out. OKW isn't as fuel starved as people think it is. Pumas, Panthers, Jagdpanzers, all come out very early for OKW if they convert. Jagdpanzers can come out earlier than a Sherman if a USF player like me builds all officers (like how it should be played).
An indirect issue with this has to do with map control as well. If the Allies have both fuel points, OKW can keep both munitions points and still manage.
If OKW was a 100% FU faction, this would be very overpowered because they'd have tanks coming out earlier than everyone. However the issue isn't as blatant and is hiding because OKW is at 66% FU. So tanks don't come out earlier than other factions, but they do come out at the same time. For a faction that was designed on superior tanks than every other faction, this is a staggering issue. OKW should have tanks coming out after every other faction does, not at the same time. Cheap OKW HQs exasperates this issue; I will elaborate on this.
Another issue is in addition to OKW tanks coming out at proper timings, they aren't penalized enough for losing tanks. They have access to beasts like Jagdtigers, King Tigers, Panthers, Sturmtigers, Jagdpanzers, but losing them doesn't matter much because replacing them isn't too difficult. OKW shouldn't have the Soviet and Allies mentality of throwing away tanks and still managing to win.
All you need is the good old munitions to fuel conversion and everything is fine and dandy for the OKW. All they need are Panzershreks anyways.
- Increase HQ Costs by 50% (300 MP + 60 FU)
You know how MU --> FU conversion nullifies the whole low fuel concept for OKW? It is exasperated by the fact that their HQs are so cheap. Just 200 MP and 40 FU for Mech and Medic HQs and 80 FU for the Flak HQ. Compared to Ostheer, USF, UKF, and USSR, its too cheap.
This also creates issues with risk vs. reward. OKW can manage to be risky with their HQs because there isn't much fuel at stake. Yes, one can argue there is more at stake than just the 200 MP and 40 FU, so this is more of a smaller issue but still an issue that needs to be fixed.
Some people say that their HQs should be cheaper because they are starved faction. This isn't a reasonable justification for cheap HQs. What is the point of fuel starving a faction because they have access to stronger units if you are going to make their techs cheaper?
This essentially gets tanks out really quickly. Do the math, USSR for example requires more fuel to get its T34 out than a Jagdpanzer.
That being said, I want this to be an intellectual discussion please without the "fanboy" "OP" cards with little to no reasoning behind statements. This isn't a flame thread, this is after analyzing the game after 2,000 hours of gameplay. I provided my reasons, so you guys give reasons to why you agree or disagree. And specifics please.
Posts: 959
I can see conversion problematic in some ways.
...I can turn in to fuel, so I can produce insane amount of vehicles.
Posts: 862
Can't we simply establish the rule that units are not to be balanced due to problems that only arise in games bigger than 1v1? Imagine you just add a 10v10 mode in League of Legends and Champs now scale up to level 30 instead of 18. Suddenly, certain mechanics that are very balanced become extremely op and annoying, although they aren't really a problem in 5v5 and max level 18, the standard game mode.
Every slight advantage gets amplified exponentially in team games. Please don't balance units around it.
Posts: 246
Posts: 4630 | Subs: 2
I am considering using this awesome quote of the year as my signature !
Posts: 4951 | Subs: 1
Posts: 4630 | Subs: 2
Watching replays isn't a replacement for actually playing the game. Converting to fuel carries extreme risk while converting to munitions does not (well as long as your doing it much later into the game). Again; you can never have to much munitions, but you can easily popcap yourself as OKW.
I recommend playing some more games as OKW before making such declarations about what is possible.
Posts: 4951 | Subs: 1
I already showed you 2 high-level replays with huge fuel float for OKW.
Posts: 742 | Subs: 1
I already showed you 2 high-level replays with huge fuel float for OKW.
Posts: 4630 | Subs: 2
Allies will still have more vehicules than OKW, and easier to replace
Cause you like replays
Posts: 1116 | Subs: 1
Permanently Banned
I'm talking about 2v2 mostly and you show me 1v1
Posts: 4630 | Subs: 2
Nobody gives a fuck about game modes beyond 2v2.
Posts: 836 | Subs: 5
I already showed you 2 high-level replays with huge fuel float for OKW.
Posts: 4630 | Subs: 2
You can't use that game as evidence that OKW somehow is OP due to resourcing and conversion.
Giap and Gaddafi not only held their fuel for the entirety of the 1 hour match, they also contested and cut off ours. The only reason Giap could afford those many tanks was because of their map control, especially the munitions, allowing him to get a decent amount of income at a severe cost of him barely throwing nades, upgrading units, and using ablities.
Posts: 4951 | Subs: 1
Well, I've never claimed that OP and you won't find such evidence.
I just said, sometimes it might be troubling because you can bust ammo to 80+/min which is insane.
Posts: 1891
15 | |||||
14 | |||||
80 | |||||
29 | |||||
17 | |||||
9 | |||||
9 | |||||
5 | |||||
2 | |||||
1 |