Login

russian armor

Panzerwerfer vs Emplacements - make it burn!

22 May 2016, 11:38 AM
#1
avatar of MissCommissar

Posts: 673

Well, I see a lot of people have problems with dealing with UKF's emplacements by Ostheer. Indeed - they are problematic, because mortars has way lesser range of fire, than mortar pit + bofors can catch them, AT guns can also be shuted with emplacements... A lot of problems in general. Only real tools for Ostheer against emplacements right now are Mortar trucks and LeFHs... and some airstrikes maybe.

So, I have suggestion. Since Panzerwerfers don't really need that "counterbattery" ability (I don't know that crazy guy, who will risk and turn it on for PW, cos you know, it moves to do barrage, sometimes right on enemy), why not to change it to another Vet 1 ability "Fire barrage". It will shoot incendiary rockets, like Stuka - should be very effectve against emplacements. It may also be Vet 2 ability, if someone scared, that it will be too OP...

P.S. That is first of all problem, genered by UKF, Ostheer were fine actually and they are. But UKF is sooooo broken... how people can't see this? Faction in core needs serious redesign, right now it is ridiculous to have that as faction in "competitive game".
22 May 2016, 11:45 AM
#2
avatar of Mr.Smith

Posts: 2636 | Subs: 17

Requiring the samey type of unit to counter another samey type of unit is a bit one-dimensional, and it's a sign that design went wrong somewhere:
- Requring snipers to counter snipers
- Requiring indirect fire to counter indirect fire
- (in the past) requiring Elefant to counter the ISU

Thus, it might be better to just fix the design deficit (Mortar Pits, Brace) which should open up more counter options, rather than breaking the game further (Sim City -> Artyfest).
22 May 2016, 11:45 AM
#3
avatar of Arclyte

Posts: 692

I am opposed to any buff to the panzerwerfer in principle. That thing deletes squads better than anything.
22 May 2016, 11:55 AM
#4
avatar of MissCommissar

Posts: 673

Requiring the samey type of unit to counter another samey type of unit is a bit one-dimensional, and it's a sign that design went wrong somewhere:
- Requring snipers to counter snipers
- Requiring indirect fire to counter indirect fire
- (in the past) requiring Elefant to counter the ISU

Thus, it might be better to just fix the design deficit (Mortar Pits, Brace) which should open up more counter options, rather than breaking the game further (Sim City -> Artyfest).


That's not one dimensional counter, actually. Emplacements are defensive structures, not indirect fire units. If I would say "buff bunkers for to counter emplacements" then yes, but it would be strange. Artillery (like PW) suppoused to deal with static defences and masses of infantry. So, that's what I want - make Ostheer artillery better for doing part it's job, dealing with static defences.

Of course, it would be better to fix emplacement design, that I would support first, but it's hard to fix them right in such game mechanics. I would stand for total redesign and remaking of UKF as faction, because it has a lot of illogical and ridiculous ideas, like "let's make faction with uberdefences and ubercombatunits". OKW was pretty same sometime ago and I wasn't happy about it. But UKF... it's just like they took OKW and multiplied it on 3 without any reason. That's not normal, I would like to see UKF like it was in vCoH - faction with very powerful defensive game but with enourmosly expensive offencive. Infantry, which hardly overpriced, underperforming tanks... just something bad to balance their goods!

22 May 2016, 12:21 PM
#5
avatar of mortiferum

Posts: 571

I am all for it, Ostheer needs a reliable anti emplacement tool.

Either that, or give us mobile artillery like Wespe or Hummel to counter the cancer.
22 May 2016, 12:50 PM
#6
avatar of kitekaze

Posts: 378


So, I have suggestion. Since Panzerwerfers don't really need that "counterbattery" ability (I don't know that crazy guy, who will risk and turn it on for PW, cos you know, it moves to do barrage, sometimes right on enemy), why not to change it to another Vet 1 ability "Fire barrage". It will shoot incendiary rockets, like Stuka - should be very effectve against emplacements. It may also be Vet 2 ability, if someone scared, that it will be too OP...

P.S. That is first of all problem, genered by UKF, Ostheer were fine actually and they are. But UKF is sooooo broken... how people can't see this? Faction in core needs serious redesign, right now it is ridiculous to have that as faction in "competitive game".


Congratulation! You just broke a faction by adopting untested overpowered meta. Do you know how lethal walking stuka flame barrage is? Do you even imagine what happen when that 6 rockets become 10 rockets that simultaneously alpha strike with no visual warning? I bet you don't.

For me, I have witnessed walking stuka flame barrage already. Blobs of 3 rifles+cap+lt get obliterated by single barrage even they have retreated.

Try better idea please.
22 May 2016, 12:54 PM
#7
avatar of SolidSteel

Posts: 74



Congratulation! You just broke a faction by adopting untested overpowered meta. Do you know how lethal walking stuka flame barrage is? Do you even imagine what happen when that 6 rockets become 10 rockets that simultaneously alpha strike with no visual warning? I bet you don't.

For me, I have witnessed walking stuka flame barrage already. Blobs of 3 rifles+cap+lt get obliterated by single barrage even they have retreated.

Try better idea please.


Doesnt really mean anything will get deleted, as the werfer will perform exactly as is does now, incediary proyectiles wont alpha anything, just make it a DOT area thing, so it forces you to move or lose things, it will only hardcounter things like concentrated cancer, something that is sorely needed and all can agree on that.
22 May 2016, 12:56 PM
#8
avatar of kitekaze

Posts: 378



Doesnt really mean anything will get deleted, as the werfer will perform exactly as is does now, incediary proyectiles wont alpha anything, just make it a DOT area thing, so it forces you to move or lose things, it will only hardcounter things like concentrated cancer, something that is sorely needed and all can agree on that.


When ten dots happen at same times, you will see a BIG difference.
22 May 2016, 12:59 PM
#9
avatar of SolidSteel

Posts: 74



When ten dots happen at same times, you will see a BIG difference.


IIRC flame dots dont stack, incendiary nades dont either, even if so, i dont think it would be hard to implement a incendiary carpet bombing that doesnt delete things, its just numbers after all.
22 May 2016, 13:19 PM
#10
avatar of Myself

Posts: 677

Brumbar is a very good candidate as an Wer late counter to emplacements. Give it a vet 0 barrage with range 60-80 and bonus damage to emplacements and I can server the role fine.
22 May 2016, 13:26 PM
#11
avatar of MissCommissar

Posts: 673

jump backJump back to quoted post22 May 2016, 13:19 PMMyself
Brumbar is a very good candidate as an Wer late counter to emplacements. Give it a vet 0 barrage with range 60-80 and bonus damage to emplacements and I can server the role fine.


Good idea too, actually. Barrage may also be incendiary... lol :D

22 May 2016, 13:37 PM
#12
avatar of kingdun3284

Posts: 392

Requiring the samey type of unit to counter another samey type of unit is a bit one-dimensional, and it's a sign that design went wrong somewhere:
- Requring snipers to counter snipers
- Requiring indirect fire to counter indirect fire
- (in the past) requiring Elefant to counter the ISU

Thus, it might be better to just fix the design deficit (Mortar Pits, Brace) which should open up more counter options, rather than breaking the game further (Sim City -> Artyfest).


And now, the game is finally balance as ally has nothing to counter elefant. :hyper:
22 May 2016, 13:39 PM
#13
avatar of Doggo

Posts: 148



That's not one dimensional counter, actually. Emplacements are defensive structures, not indirect fire units. If I would say "buff bunkers for to counter emplacements" then yes, but it would be strange. Artillery (like PW) suppoused to deal with static defences and masses of infantry. So, that's what I want - make Ostheer artillery better for doing part it's job, dealing with static defences.

Of course, it would be better to fix emplacement design, that I would support first, but it's hard to fix them right in such game mechanics. I would stand for total redesign and remaking of UKF as faction, because it has a lot of illogical and ridiculous ideas, like "let's make faction with uberdefences and ubercombatunits". OKW was pretty same sometime ago and I wasn't happy about it. But UKF... it's just like they took OKW and multiplied it on 3 without any reason. That's not normal, I would like to see UKF like it was in vCoH - faction with very powerful defensive game but with enourmosly expensive offencive. Infantry, which hardly overpriced, underperforming tanks... just something bad to balance their goods!



You do know the British were the weakest faction in vCoH right? It wasn't good design nor realistic.

Given that UKF units aren't as good as USF or OKW units, I would think buffs would be required with this change. Brits rely on Their emplacements.
22 May 2016, 19:00 PM
#14
avatar of Waegukin

Posts: 609

But UKF is sooooo broken... how people can't see this? Faction in core needs serious redesign, right now it is ridiculous to have that as faction in "competitive game".


http://coh2chart.com/

So broke they have the exact same 1v1 winrates as Ostheer with the only worse faction being Soviets.

On topic, flame werfer barrage isn't a bad idea, but if the Wher is waiting until T4 to have a counter, something is very, very wrong. Would rather see adjustments made to the emplacements themselves.
22 May 2016, 19:26 PM
#15
avatar of MissCommissar

Posts: 673



http://coh2chart.com/

So broke they have the exact same 1v1 winrates as Ostheer with the only worse faction being Soviets.

On topic, flame werfer barrage isn't a bad idea, but if the Wher is waiting until T4 to have a counter, something is very, very wrong. Would rather see adjustments made to the emplacements themselves.


Winrates are about how people play as faction, not about inner logic and mechanic of it. Am I only one, who thinks, that faction with such powerful defences, powerful infantry, uberpowerful tanks, FHQs, snipers, weapon racks, weapons teams, uberengineers... is not normal? They only feel lack of normal arty, but their shitty one is also non-doctrinal.

UKF's design is ridiculous. It might perform well in 1v1, but it only means, that 1v1 games doesn't really show real problems and features of faction design and logic of it, cos in UKF's design there is no logic.
22 May 2016, 19:35 PM
#16
avatar of general_gawain

Posts: 919

But UKF is sooooo broken... how people can't see this? Faction in core needs serious redesign, right now it is ridiculous to have that as faction in "competitive game".


As Waegukin said already winratios don't reflect this and there is a reason for it. I played around a lot with brits since their release and yeah their emplacements with the exception of 17pdr are very strong. But if you set them under pressure from the start they will struggle and bleeding manpower heavily. Ostheer Sniper for example is a pain in the ass for brits, because their is no real counter (UC does not well enough). Furhermore your opponent can force you in an AEC so Bofors are no further option then.

I'm not a fan of static games and playing the brits as offensive as possible, but of course I need one well placed mortar pit at least for its indirect fire option. If it would be easy destructible there wouldn't be any indirect options. If you nerf emplacements you would have to buff a long list of other units, to give brits better offensive capabilities, or give them Sexton or Land Matress as a nondoctrinal unit.
22 May 2016, 19:40 PM
#17
avatar of general_gawain

Posts: 919

powerful infantry, uberpowerful tanks, FHQs, uberengineers...

UKF's OKW's design is ridiculous. It might perform well in 1v1, but it only means, that 1v1 games doesn't really show real problems and features of faction design and logic of it, cos in UKF's OKW's design there is no logic.


Fixed it for you, because the upper four aspects definitely belong to OKW. :D
22 May 2016, 19:41 PM
#18
avatar of general_gawain

Posts: 919

sorry, double post
22 May 2016, 19:43 PM
#19
avatar of Katitof

Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8



http://coh2chart.com/

So broke they have the exact same 1v1 winrates as Ostheer with the only worse faction being Soviets.

On topic, flame werfer barrage isn't a bad idea, but if the Wher is waiting until T4 to have a counter, something is very, very wrong. Would rather see adjustments made to the emplacements themselves.


So, taking that win rate, and considering the fact that people constantly bitch and whine to no end that UKF is op, that have to mean that exactly the same ost is also op equally :romeoHairDay:
22 May 2016, 19:53 PM
#20
avatar of Firesparks

Posts: 1930

waiting for the panzerwerfer to counter emplacement is kind of late. The game is going to be long over by then.

the bofor barrage needs a range nerf and the mortar emplacement need an autofire range nerf. The problem right now is that the bofor counter its own counter and the mortar emplacement cover too much ground.
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

705 users are online: 705 guests
0 post in the last 24h
0 post in the last week
28 posts in the last month
Registered members: 49427
Welcome our newest member, Baqis73421
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM