USF mortar and OKW mg

2 basic things I think could be a positive change:

1. USF mortar should be moved to lieutenant tier. This solves 2 problems:

a. The pak howitzer is irrelevant right now. With this change, your indirect choice comes off tech.
b. The USF mortar is a little too effective early on; usually, rifles are sufficient to deal with 1 or 2 mgs. MGs become more of a problem later one when it can get really hard to break them, and this allows USF to still have access to the mortar to deal with it down the line.

2. The OKW mg needs to not require teching. There's a problem right now with the OKW mg in that it takes way too much time to hit the field. It's greatest value, in combating early game blobs and helping secure some early territory, can't happen because it isn't hitting the field till light vehicles do.

thoughts?

The whole point of putting the mortar in the game was to diversify USF's opening. If it's behind tech then there was no point of adding it in the first place.

2 basic things I think could be a positive change:

1. USF mortar should be moved to lieutenant tier. This solves 2 problems:

a. The pak howitzer is irrelevant right now. With this change, your indirect choice comes off tech.
b. The USF mortar is a little too effective early on; usually, rifles are sufficient to deal with 1 or 2 mgs. MGs become more of a problem later one when it can get really hard to break them, and this allows USF to still have access to the mortar to deal with it down the line.

2. The OKW mg needs to not require teching. There's a problem right now with the OKW mg in that it takes way too much time to hit the field. It's greatest value, in combating early game blobs and helping secure some early territory, can't happen because it isn't hitting the field till light vehicles do.

thoughts?

So you want to remove the only way that USF has of dealing with garrisoned MG's in the early game (without critically delaying tech), and turn around and give the other axis faction a MG so they can garrison also....

For reasons mentioned above, it feels more like the USF mortar needs to be a lighter version of the weapon and remain at T0.

I do understand the feeling that too much of important OKW weaponry is locked away behind T1 though. At the same time, they have more units available at T0 than any other army, I think. It's an odd situation. Mostly it's just that they have a hard time teching to that first building, especially if you want to do it outside your base sector.

Not many people use LT, and for good reason. It's just not very good when it comes to countering 222 spam and Luchs, which are very common builds and adding a mortar wouldn't help that. Effectively giving USF another hardly touched unit.

Only way I could see this working is if LT got the Cpt's Zook and Cpt got the BAR.

The whole point of putting the mortar in the game was to diversify USF's opening. If it's behind tech then there was no point of adding it in the first place.

Let's be real, Relic hasn't diversified anything for USF. Pretty much every player you see goes 3x riflemen still, with or without the mortar that would only be slightly pushed back in timing if ti was added to LT. Not to mention 99% of people only use Heavy Cav or Tac Support, and that's not going to change anytime soon.

If they wanted to diversify things that ship sailed awhile ago.

okw has smth like 5 units that not require teching at all.

how about you start to get gud?

Units and teching are pretty good right now, no need to change on any factions.

there are still some stupidly unbalanced things in the game (looking at you scavenge doc!) but overall the game is great.

2 basic things I think could be a positive change:

1. USF mortar should be moved to lieutenant tier. This solves 2 problems:

a. The pak howitzer is irrelevant right now. With this change, your indirect choice comes off tech.
b. The USF mortar is a little too effective early on; usually, rifles are sufficient to deal with 1 or 2 mgs. MGs become more of a problem later one when it can get really hard to break them, and this allows USF to still have access to the mortar to deal with it down the line.

2. The OKW mg needs to not require teching. There's a problem right now with the OKW mg in that it takes way too much time to hit the field. It's greatest value, in combating early game blobs and helping secure some early territory, can't happen because it isn't hitting the field till light vehicles do.

thoughts?

I know this topic is as old as time, and I admit I play 3v3, 4v4, but I feel like T0 MGs just encourage lazy gameplay wherein a player merely has to put an MG in a certain spot, to lock down large swaths of territory, the opposing player then has to work harder to dislodge it, giving the axis player more time to field more/better units. basically minimum effort for maximum pay-off.

So you want to remove the only way that USF has of dealing with garrisoned MG's in the early game (without critically delaying tech), and turn around and give the other axis faction a MG so they can garrison also....

Anyone that's halfway competent can figure out how to deal with an MG using rifles. That's literally been the situation for years, and also that was the situation in COH1. USF having a mortar is the exception, not the norm.

The whole point of putting the mortar in the game was to diversify USF's opening. If it's behind tech then there was no point of adding it in the first place.

So you want to remove the only way that USF has of dealing with garrisoned MG's in the early game (without critically delaying tech), and turn around and give the other axis faction a MG so they can garrison also....

USF opening can be accused of plain, but it can't be accuse of being weak.

it's a fact that USF hold the dominance in the early game. The wehr is stuck on the defense against the rifleman and then the stuart before the panzer arrive.

Providing the USF with a mortar is a huge boost. It put a dramatic pressure on the wehr mg, providing the usf with the means to kill the wehr early by neutralizing the mg.

The whole point of putting the mortar in the game was to diversify USF's opening. If it's behind tech then there was no point of adding it in the first place.

I don't particularly care too much about the diversity of openings if it comes at the cost of gameplay.

I know this topic is as old as time, and I admit I play 3v3, 4v4, but I feel like T0 MGs just encourage lazy gameplay wherein a player merely has to put an MG in a certain spot, to lock down large swaths of territory, the opposing player then has to work harder to dislodge it, giving the axis player more time to field more/better units. basically minimum effort for maximum pay-off.

I don't really play larger team games so I can't really comment on that, but I guess that's fair. I always thought that's how the game is supposed to be, Axis is able to lock down some territory that allies have to dislodge, but I could see how 4 axis teams all with mgs would make it literally impossible to flank.

Anyone that's halfway competent can figure out how to deal with an MG using rifles. That's literally been the situation for years, and also that was the situation in COH1. USF having a mortar is the exception, not the norm.

1.No other faction in Coh1 or Coh2 starts the game with a cq unit. Doesn't matter if you flank an mg if there is a Spio hanging about.

2. Usf cannot get an mg out of a building without flames or nades, which are doctrinal or tech.

3. You say any one competent can flank an mg, well anyone competent can move an mg.

I will never see the logic in giving okw a t0 mg other than to diversify openings. The notion that okw cannot hold usf in the early game is highly debatable and ime often comes down to the map, bad rng, simply being caught out of position or overextending. Yes there is a small period of time where usf has the advantage (1 - 2 min) especially if there have been favourable engagements but then usf has to concede map to reniforce and heal etc.

I think a lot of the early game for okw is often decided by the actions of the Spio. Most players will use a Spio aggressively either to attack the fuel or cutoff of an opponent, if that assault goes badly then OFC usf then has the advantage.

That being said, I think usf morter in t0 is a mistake. Its another lazy solution and a low skill alternative. Early flamers have always been the usf counter to units in buildings. Relegating flamers to doctrines is simply a weak attempt to make Coh2 different to Coh1 and imo an absolute failure design wise.
Just ask ShadowWada LOL.

My solution.
Add flames and jeep to t0.
Add morter to t1 and lower tech cost slightly.
Split tech for Bars and zooks .
Change the pack howie to be more heavy duty but with a cool down.
Delay stuart arrival somewhat..

Other changes to okw and ost are also needed but thats another thread

No they need to make usf aa really bad but the barrage really good so it's a real mg counter and not a machine gun mortar
Then they need to make mg 34 have more bullet total so you need to reload less and a bit more suppression and reduce vet requirements by much and uping the price to 250/270

Making the OKW MG non-doctrinal, while a good thing in theory, actually made it come much later than before. If the idea was to make the MG34 more widely used, I think the achieved effect has been the opposite, at least for me.

Personally, I didn't mind going Luftwaffe 90% of games and getting the MG as a call-in at 1cp.

1.No other faction in Coh1 or Coh2 starts the game with a cq unit. Doesn't matter if you flank an mg if there is a Spio hanging about.

2. Usf cannot get an mg out of a building without flames or nades, which are doctrinal or tech.

3. You say any one competent can flank an mg, well anyone competent can move an mg.

I will never see the logic in giving okw a t0 mg other than to diversify openings. The notion that okw cannot hold usf in the early game is highly debatable and ime often comes down to the map, bad rng, simply being caught out of position or overextending. Yes there is a small period of time where usf has the advantage (1 - 2 min) especially if there have been favourable engagements but then usf has to concede map to reniforce and heal etc.

I think a lot of the early game for okw is often decided by the actions of the Spio. Most players will use a Spio aggressively either to attack the fuel or cutoff of an opponent, if that assault goes badly then OFC usf then has the advantage.

That being said, I think usf morter in t0 is a mistake. Its another lazy solution and a low skill alternative. Early flamers have always been the usf counter to units in buildings. Relegating flamers to doctrines is simply a weak attempt to make Coh2 different to Coh1 and imo an absolute failure design wise.
Just ask ShadowWada LOL.

My solution.
Add flames and jeep to t0.
Add morter to t1 and lower tech cost slightly.
Split tech for Bars and zooks .
Change the pack howie to be more heavy duty but with a cool down.
Delay stuart arrival somewhat..

Other changes to okw and ost are also needed but thats another thread

wehr have a slow start. unless the wehr went osttruppen or assault grenadier, the USF will always get to the fuel first. Even A rear echelon in a building is going to take some effort to remove.

the wehr is stuck on the defensive until their panzer earlier. Even without the free bazooka, the free captain is a significant boost for the USF. the USf also get access to the excellent stuart to further reinforce map control.

wehr have a slow start. unless the wehr went osttruppen or assault grenadier, the USF will always get to the fuel first. Even A rear echelon in a building is going to take some effort to remove.

the wehr is stuck on the defensive until their panzer earlier. Even without the free bazooka, the free captain is a significant boost for the USF. the USf also get access to the excellent stuart to further reinforce map control.

Um, wtf are you talking about.

The thread is about adding mg to okw t0.

I am clearly saying give some nerfs to usf.

Nothing you say is even remotely relevant.

Um, wtf are you talking about.

The thread is about adding mg to okw t0.

I am clearly saying give some nerfs to usf.

Nothing you say is even remotely relevant.

I don't really see the need to give any buffs to the early game USF, jeeps, flamer, mortars, or otherwise. As "boring" as the rifleman build is, it's still one of the strongest early game in the entire game, if not the strongest.


Even delaying the stuart is nothing more than an empty gesture. The USF doesn't have to worry about 222 as bazooka will easily take care of them. The stuart is simply extra topping on top of an already strong early game faction.

and splitting tech for bar and bazooka is also a useless change. People are just going to use m1919a6 + bazooka and completely ignore the BAR.

I don't really see the need to give any buffs to the early game USF, jeeps, flamer, mortars, or otherwise. As "boring" as the rifleman build is, it's still one of the strongest early game in the entire game, if not the strongest.


Even delaying the stuart is nothing more than an empty gesture. The USF doesn't have to worry about 222 as bazooka will easily take care of them. The stuart is simply extra topping on top of an already strong early game faction.

and splitting tech for bar and bazooka is also a useless change. People are just going to use m1919a6 + bazooka and completely ignore the BAR.

Exactly what buffs are you talking about. Flamers are already in the game, jeeps are already in the game. The one and only thing that could be considered a buff would be if a flamer was put in a jeep. Usf would gain an end game buff by not needing to choose a flamer doctrine.

I proposed moving morter to t1, how is that a buff. I propose delaying stuart, how is that an empty gesture. Both these suggestions give axis more time to stabilise and establish counters.

Everyone acknowledges that ostheer is struggling and that the usf morter is still a tad op however the fact remains that usf has very limited counters( flamer doc and nade tech ) to mg spam.