Petition to revert crushing change
Posts: 344
Healing should also be removed, because this mechanic can unfairly impact enemy players who do not bother to spend the time/micro to heal their infantry.
The removal of crush is just silly and nonsensical, and the hallmark of catering to bad players. If you are not paying enough attention to retreat from an oncoming crush or to cover your troops with enough AT to dissuade the enemy from executing it, then you absolutely deserve to get your sh*t wrecked.
Mines, AT, and snares exist for a reason. Use them, or suffer.
Oh, additionally, I think we should nerf Axis units' effectiveness at long range, since the Soviets (pre doomPenal) were never very good at it to begin with.
Posts: 466
Ost:
Panther
Brummbar (only in ballance preview)
Tiger
Tiger Ace
Elephant/Ferdinand
Sov:
KV-1
KV-2
IS-2
ISU-152
OKW:
Panther
Command Panther
Konigstiger
Sturmtiger
Jagdtiger
USF:
Pershing
Bulldozer Sherman
Brits:
Comet
Churchill
Crocodile
AVRE
Somebody correct me if I forgot something.
KV8
Posts: 2885
Posts: 175
Posts: 621
Next we need to make medics non-combatants while also being untargetable so that we have soldiers that respect the Geneva convention
Posts: 2885
Guys crushing infantry is cruel, tanks didnt go around running over infantry they shot them with their guns, Relic wants to make the game more immersive by introducing this change.
Next we need to make medics non-combatants while also being untargetable so that we have soldiers that respect the Geneva convention
Out of 5 factions in the game I fail to see even one that respected geneva convention during ww2 And tanks did run over infantry if they had a chance, just were scared of at-nades (just like in coh2!) enough not to close the distance by themselves. If you wanted to make it more realistic you should make the difference between range of tank and nade much bigger, but that would actually make the game boring.
Btw what would you say about medic hunting simulator also known as vcoh?
Posts: 621
Out of 5 factions in the game I fail to see even one that respected geneva convention during ww2 And tanks did run over infantry if they had a chance, just were scared of at-nades (just like in coh2!) enough not to close the distance by themselves. If you wanted to make it more realistic you should make the difference between range of tank and nade much bigger, but that would actually make the game boring.
Btw what would you say about medic hunting simulator also known as vcoh?
Many accidental misfires happened in vcoh and still happens to this day
Posts: 392
Posts: 526
I think when a tank risking itself to crush into infantries which have snares or hand held AT, it should be rewarded
Infantry crushing prevents handheld at from firing since the infantry are automatically moved and their weapons aren't able to fire when moving. No risk involved. In fact it is far more risky NOT to dive in for the crush when you see handheld at blobs.
Posts: 283
the crushing needs a nerf, but the small size needs to stay. the small size keep the cromwell relevant into the late game as it grant cromwell survivability against the axis anti-tank weapon.
How does the Pansy IV manage to stay relevant into the late game with its size of 22? Especially the Ostheer version, which is just as endangered by Allied AT weaponry as is the Cromwell by Axis AT weaponry...
Posts: 27
Posts: 2307 | Subs: 4
Infantry crushing prevents handheld at from firing since the infantry are automatically moved and their weapons aren't able to fire when moving. No risk involved. In fact it is far more risky NOT to dive in for the crush when you see handheld at blobs.
Don't blob up then and spread your units out. Problem solved. Why should one squad of infantry completely negate vehicle play? If you have multiple AT units spread out and if they try to crush they will lose the tank.
Posts: 2885
Infantry crushing prevents handheld at from firing since the infantry are automatically moved and their weapons aren't able to fire when moving. No risk involved. In fact it is far more risky NOT to dive in for the crush when you see handheld at blobs.
What about snares then? They hit the tank when soldier is getting crushed even if he didn't manage to fire.
Posts: 1930
How does the Pansy IV manage to stay relevant into the late game with its size of 22? Especially the Ostheer version, which is just as endangered by Allied AT weaponry as is the Cromwell by Axis AT weaponry...
because the allied anti-tank are generally weaker?
the US and Soviet are atg both weaker than the pak40.
US snare is harder to use than the faust.
the bazooka are weaker than the schreck. ( less of an issue in the preview, but it's not like the bazooka was buffed)
The PIAT can easily be dodge by a Panzer 4.
the jackson and firefly are designed to be good against heavy but inefficient against medium. They have high penetration but slower firing rate.
the (vanilla) su-85 is the least accurate TD in the game. Even the buffed version in the preview trade in rate of fire for pen and accuracy.
Posts: 474
I think when a tank risking itself to crush into infantries which have snares or hand held AT, it should be rewarded
WITH A PANZERFAUST TO THE FACE!
Posts: 526
What about snares then? They hit the tank when soldier is getting crushed even if he didn't manage to fire.
Precisely why I said handheld AT and not snares. I was responding to an erroneous post saying that it is risky for a tank to go in for an infantry crush against infantry with handheld AT and snares. I was pointing out that handheld AT doesn't fire.
Posts: 210
Posts: 526
Don't blob up then and spread your units out. Problem solved. Why should one squad of infantry completely negate vehicle play? If you have multiple AT units spread out and if they try to crush they will lose the tank.
I was talking about this from the perspective of the tank driver not the blobber. Read again if you must. Point is it's less risky to dive in for the crush against infantry handheld At than it is to stay put, or in some circumstances to try and leave the scene.
Posts: 56
There's really no other reason for this to be removed. Axis has capable crushing ability too, specially with blitzkrieg. And with the upcoming snare addition to the OKW, it's going to become more of a situational tactic rather than an obvious one for allies players facing blobs.
A smart player would not have problem dealing with the threat of a incoming tank crush. Players should adapt and learn to counter enemy tactics, instead of having to ruin it for everyone by removing and limiting core mechanics.
And realistically, aside from the crushing (a mechanic that the axis also can put into play) capabilities of allies' medium tanks, they have no non-doctrinal way to punish blobbing enemies, apart from SU's Katyushas.
Posts: 493
Somebody correct me if I forgot something.
Thanks. Well I lol'd 'cause never saw before that some HEAVY vehicle crush infantry and thought they are so slow for that. I wonder if relic decides that pushing infantry affects balance (gardeding pudding i can't fire mah pzshrek 'cause units just 'dancing' being pushing by m3 pls fix lelic) and will make infantry invisible/transparent (noclip) for moving vehicles.
Livestreams
40 | |||||
126 | |||||
5 | |||||
2 |
Ladders Top 10
-
#Steam AliasWL%Streak
- 1.655231.739+15
- 2.842223.791+5
- 3.35157.860+16
- 4.599234.719+7
- 5.934410.695-1
- 6.278108.720+29
- 7.307114.729+3
- 8.645.928+5
- 9.10629.785+7
- 10.527.881+18
Replay highlight
- cblanco ★
- 보드카 중대
- VonManteuffel
- Heartless Jäger