i said only vet received accuracy and shook were excluded
You mean HMG?
And who do you mean by them? Assault grens? Sturmpios? PPSH partisans? Commandos who do not have a single rec acc bonus? Oh these pesky OP CQC units.
Because LMGs are not supposed to melt everything on approach. Thats why they were nerfed over and over.
And HMG do not counter inf by dealing damage to it.
How would you address new factions' powercreep?
14 Jul 2016, 13:15 PM
#21
Posts: 4474
katitof-2018
Katitof-2018
Katitof-2018
14 Jul 2016, 13:17 PM
#22
Posts: 372
Because I personally consider charging with HMG against LMG squad behind cover being a bad idea.
You can just as easily put it behind cover too and let it engage at maximum range.
14 Jul 2016, 13:18 PM
#23
Posts: 88
You mean HMG?
And who do you mean by them? Assault grens? Sturmpios? PPSH partisans? Commandos who do not have a single rec acc bonus? Oh these pesky OP CQC units.
Because LMGs are not supposed to melt everything on approach. Thats why they were nerfed over and over.
And HMG do not counter inf by dealing damage to it.
And CQC should dominate everything? What a coincidence that one side gets all the good CQC units (apart from sturms).
What happened to smoke and flanking to get your CQC where they need to be?
14 Jul 2016, 13:22 PM
#24
Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8
And CQC should dominate everything? What a coincidence that one side gets all the good CQC units (apart from sturms).
What happened to smoke and flanking to get your CQC where they need to be?
And why LMG blobs should dominate everything?
Already forgot what happened at release of WFA with M1919 and obers?
Grens are in current state exclusively because of LMG strength alone and you want to make LMGs even more powerful?
Maybe it's 'cause the Axis players aren't a bunch of forum crybabies, and they keep their cool and fight the uphill battle, unlike some of their "allied" counterparts.
14 Jul 2016, 13:25 PM
#25
Posts: 4474
stop you just came back from ban
And why LMG blobs should dominate everything?
Already forgot what happened at release of WFA with M1919 and obers?
Grens are in current state exclusively because of LMG strength alone and you want to make LMGs even more powerful?
what we are talking about is to halve all inf vet rec accuracy apart ober and shook troop the other close quarter unit are good already
lmg blob will be constricted to use green cover
katitof-2018
Katitof-2018
Katitof-2018
14 Jul 2016, 13:29 PM
#26
Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8
stop you just came back from ban
what we are talking about is to halve all inf vet rec accuracy apart ober and shook troop the other close quarter unit are good already
And that directly buffs all LMGs and nerfs all squads with short-mid weaponry, leading to LMGs being most efficient weapon to use because its again the easiest one to use.
Learn from god damn past or you'll keep repeating the same mistakes.
It doesn't take a genius to tell which kind of weapon would dominate battlefield if suddenly all infantry except for two units would get considerable more fragile.
Maybe it's 'cause the Axis players aren't a bunch of forum crybabies, and they keep their cool and fight the uphill battle, unlike some of their "allied" counterparts.
14 Jul 2016, 13:39 PM
#27
Posts: 88
And why LMG blobs should dominate everything?
Already forgot what happened at release of WFA with M1919 and obers?
Grens are in current state exclusively because of LMG strength alone and you want to make LMGs even more powerful?
First of all, why trying to bring in blobs? What we see now are Rifleblobs, OKWblobs and to and extend Britblobs. Nobody wants LMG gren blobs back (eventhough 1919 blobs are not uncommon, maybe talk about that, huh?). Also no where did I say that I want LMG blobs to dominate everything, I just dont want the CQC units to be able to straigth up walk to another unit in cover and be favored in that engagement because the men in the squad watched to much matrix.
14 Jul 2016, 13:50 PM
#28
Posts: 132
First of all, why trying to bring in blobs? What we see now are Rifleblobs, OKWblobs and to and extend Britblobs. Nobody wants LMG gren blobs back (eventhough 1919 blobs are not uncommon, maybe talk about that, huh?). Also no where did I say that I want LMG blobs to dominate everything, I just dont want the CQC units to be able to straigth up walk to another unit in cover and be favored in that engagement because the men in the squad watched to much matrix.
So what you actually want is not to reduce nearly all units' received accuracy bonuses but to buff rifle weapons?
Writes out of 2v2 perspective.
14 Jul 2016, 13:58 PM
#29
Posts: 88
So what you actually want is not to reduce nearly all units' received accuracy bonuses but to buff rifle weapons?
There is a couple of options, really.
Reduce dmg of CQC units, would not want that because you should get punished if you let them close the gap. Increase rifle damage, also not pref because I dont think its needed. Or increase the damage they take on approach to force the enemy to use support weapons, which would be my prefered option. This would also increase the risk the player has and would not influence USF early game much.
14 Jul 2016, 14:00 PM
#30
Posts: 4474
the squad who have qqc have almost no vet received accuracy just give them ,like gren ,reduced received accuracy from the start (ranger ppsq cons volks and para are not qqc they can get lmg ) partisan , shook troop , commando , assault gren , pgren ,
And that directly buffs all LMGs and nerfs all squads with short-mid weaponry, leading to LMGs being most efficient weapon to use because its again the easiest one to use.
Learn from god damn past or you'll keep repeating the same mistakes.
It doesn't take a genius to tell which kind of weapon would dominate battlefield if suddenly all infantry except for two units would get considerable more fragile.
katitof-2018
Katitof-2018
Katitof-2018
14 Jul 2016, 14:09 PM
#31
Posts: 132
There is a couple of options, really.
Reduce dmg of CQC units, would not want that because you should get punished if you let them close the gap. Increase rifle damage, also not pref because I dont think its needed. Or increase the damage they take on approach to force the enemy to use support weapons, which would be my prefered option. This would also increase the risk the player has and would not influence USF early game much.
Well, the way I see it is this.
Unit A is a rifle squad that can upgrade to lmgs.
Unit B is a cc squad.
A is in cover. B runs up and wins the engagement because A doesn't have enough damage to prevent them from doing so. Player A starts blobbing his units to defend against B. And what's the most efficient weapon to blob? lmgs. Reduce received accuracy and player A will simply be more enticed to blob as his units are effective further away. So the fundamental issues are that long range squads are too weak individually against cc units and too effective against them when blobbed because of lmgs. If you buffed rifles and nerfed lmgs (with perhaps adjusted mp/muni costs), those problems should be taken care of. But this won't happen, because Relic's roadmap for this game is past those kinds of major balance changes.
Writes out of 2v2 perspective.
14 Jul 2016, 16:38 PM
#32
Posts: 609
Easiest fix to a lot of these issues is to limit LMGs to 1 per squad and deal with the insane sapper vet, IMO.
14 Jul 2016, 17:17 PM
#33
Posts: 621
Squad that become troubling in the late game thanks to their received accuracy, making it hard for MGs to counter them
They could have a modifier added when they get received accuracy vet that makes them take more suppression damage to counteract the received accuracy so it doesn't allow a squad to charge MG's frontally
Thats the only change I would suggest on that matter as it would allow VET 0 HMGs to continue to better counter Vetted infantry that walk in front of it
They could have a modifier added when they get received accuracy vet that makes them take more suppression damage to counteract the received accuracy so it doesn't allow a squad to charge MG's frontally
Thats the only change I would suggest on that matter as it would allow VET 0 HMGs to continue to better counter Vetted infantry that walk in front of it
14 Jul 2016, 20:42 PM
#34
Posts: 414
I embrace any solution that doesn't allow a cqc squad to close in open terrain on a lmg/mg squad in greencover/garrison and win the engagement.
14 Jul 2016, 20:58 PM
#35
Posts: 1930
Recieved acc nerfs across the board
that would probably hurt the grenadier more than it hurts the allies.
14 Jul 2016, 22:02 PM
#36
Posts: 930
that would probably hurt the grenadier more than it hurts the allies.
It wouldn't, right now most people I play against don't even care about cover, they just rush in their LMG grens and rip everything apart, and late game this become even worse since most cover will be destroyed Grens just win every engagement, they need some reduction in their rec acc so cover don't transform them into matrix characters.
14 Jul 2016, 22:21 PM
#37
Posts: 276
-increase all CQC squads' LOS (so that they have more sight than long/med range squads)
-add a debuff to CQCs that increases received accuracy by 15% when in negative/no cover, and only disappears when in cover (acts like tommy cover buff)
CQCs can't yolocharge from open ground and faceroll units in cover anymore. Increased sight allows them to plan flanks on long range units more effectively.
-add a debuff to CQCs that increases received accuracy by 15% when in negative/no cover, and only disappears when in cover (acts like tommy cover buff)
CQCs can't yolocharge from open ground and faceroll units in cover anymore. Increased sight allows them to plan flanks on long range units more effectively.
I am not responsible for anything I say.
14 Jul 2016, 23:39 PM
#38
Posts: 179
It wouldn't, right now most people I play against don't even care about cover, they just rush in their LMG grens and rip everything apart, and late game this become even worse since most cover will be destroyed Grens just win every engagement, they need some reduction in their rec acc so cover don't transform them into matrix characters.
But Late game 80% of the time has light cover craters everywhere. I don't know what your talking about.
Also grens are very squishy unless vet 3, I'd rather use the glorious prosttruppen late game because of cost and how much durable prosttruppen are all together vs grens.
Also, you have to consider all units if doing something that affects all units. AssGrens, AssEngies, Pgrens, REs, Sappers, Sturmpios, Falls, Commandos, Pioneers, PPSH Cons, STG Volks, Thompson Rangers and Paras, Partysans, and Stormtoopers would all be heavily nerfed and be completely inferior to Units with LMGs in 90% of situations now.
And that's alot of infantry
14 Jul 2016, 23:50 PM
#39
Posts: 247
-increase all CQC squads' LOS (so that they have more sight than long/med range squads)
-add a debuff to CQCs that increases received accuracy by 15% when in negative/no cover, and only disappears when in cover (acts like tommy cover buff)
CQCs can't yolocharge from open ground and faceroll units in cover anymore. Increased sight allows them to plan flanks on long range units more effectively.
I don't like it, axis CQC squads (namely pgrens and sturmpios, that's basically all that's worth mentioning) are already struggling to remain relevant outside niche roles due to unremarkable durability and low model counts. They still work well in the ambush and defensive roles in cover, but their problem is GETTING to cover; they so often lose a model trying to get there and with that 25% DPS drop they no longer have much of an advantage against most decent infantry squads.
15 Jul 2016, 01:53 AM
#40
Posts: 3145 | Subs: 2
How about we bring the Eastern Front Armies up instead of bringing down Western Front Armies?
It's obvious that while Wehr vs Soviets was balanced, it was dull at times.
The WFA just provide so many more options and fun, unique strats.
What they need is a bit of balance (proper balance, not buff this unit and nerf this unit into oblivion), and a few toys which the WFA have, for example forward retreat, while yes this would be a problem on small maps it would be a great bit of help on larger maps, and besides, I don't see anybody bitching about WFA's forward retreat points so...
Think of it like socialism, why bring in something new and unique if you're just going to dumb it down to basic, ground level because these and these people aren't able to cope with it?
Here's a video that explains it better, try to apply the same logic to game balance and the current topic at hand to be more specific:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3h8O7V-WxWQ
It's obvious that while Wehr vs Soviets was balanced, it was dull at times.
The WFA just provide so many more options and fun, unique strats.
What they need is a bit of balance (proper balance, not buff this unit and nerf this unit into oblivion), and a few toys which the WFA have, for example forward retreat, while yes this would be a problem on small maps it would be a great bit of help on larger maps, and besides, I don't see anybody bitching about WFA's forward retreat points so...
Think of it like socialism, why bring in something new and unique if you're just going to dumb it down to basic, ground level because these and these people aren't able to cope with it?
Here's a video that explains it better, try to apply the same logic to game balance and the current topic at hand to be more specific:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3h8O7V-WxWQ
1 user is browsing this thread:
1 guest
Livestreams
 |
|
|
67 | ||
 |
|
|
48 | ||
 |
|
|
19 | ||
 |
|
|
8 | ||
 |
|
|
178 | ||
|
|
|
|
14 | ||
 |
|
|
5 | ||
 |
|
|
3 | ||
|
|
|
|
3 | ||
|
|
|
|
2 |
Ladders Top 10
-
#Steam AliasWL%Streak
- 1.831222.789+37
- 2.600215.736+15
- 3.34957.860+14
- 4.1107614.643+8
- 5.305114.728+1
- 6.916405.693-2
- 7.273108.717+24
- 8.722440.621+4
- 9.261137.656+2
- 10.1041674.607-2
Data provided by
Relic Entertainment
Relic Entertainment
Replay highlight
VS
-
cblanco ★ -
보드카 중대
-
VonManteuffel -
Heartless Jäger
Einhoven Country
Honor it
9
Download
1235
Board Info
768 users are online:
768 guests
0 post in the last 24h
8 posts in the last week
34 posts in the last month
8 posts in the last week
34 posts in the last month
Registered members: 49107
Welcome our newest member, Falac851
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM
Welcome our newest member, Falac851
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM