The maxim change impact too much Soviets.
Posts: 976
T2:All the change made where good individually, but has a whole, it remove all the teeth the Sovs had.
The maxim was an offensive weapon, designed to advance and to follow troops (conscripts).
it's why it had small cone of fire, and fast setup.
Having changed that, The Soviets now lack basic offense and attack follow-up.
Their mortars alone aren't good enough to sustain an offensive because it fire to slowly.
Add the toning down of the T-70 and the flack halftrack, sustain offense is now problematic.
T1:
Penals changes are good, but the flamer was the trade off for not building T2 (no mgs), but now again Sovs lost a great offensive weapon, but got better defense.
This also lead to the Katusha being a too great option (Offensive/defensive), now it's way too common.
Now you need T1 + T2 or T2 + and a gards doctrine and both are too slow.
So we need more focus on giving the Sovs a faster offensive.
It's only my opinion.(from a 4vs4 random automatch player...)
Posts: 711
Posts: 976
MG must be defensive and area denying tool not offensive. Offensive MG it's LMG or guntrack with quads. Main problem with maxim it's that core infantry of SU - conscripts are too weak in comparsion to grens and volks, that was a reason to build only maxim's instead cons. But IMO penals are good, with AT satchels they can fully replace cons as core infantry (it's weird because penals are "elite"), their AI capabilities are pretty solid (without PTRS guns). Also they very good for late game phase where cons absolutely trash. For more aggresive offensive try to use shocks.
Maxim was made to be an offensive weapon.
Shocks are doctrinal are too short ranged.
Posts: 711
Maxim was made to be an offensive weapon.
Yea and M3 was made to carry infantry inside, but sniper can't go in for sake of balance. Time changed. Now maxim it's defensive tool. Because as offensive it's will give us maxim cancer tactic - more maxims for glory of maxim God! I tried played in such style it's absolutely stupid and in right hands very hard countered (player with equal skill can't properly counter this tactic). IMO maxim should get personal soviet teleportation tool like germans have.
Posts: 236
Posts: 976
maxim needs to be cheaper if its going to be nerfed or penals having a faster build time. The problem soviets have with their buildings if they don't go con spam in the opening then soviets have a relatively slow start.
Maybe you are on something.
Or both with a faster build time?
Or build the conscripts faster, so they have te time to use sand bags ?
Or build the building faster (t1,t2)?
-Fast fielding infantry, fit rather well with Soviets.
Posts: 212
The maxim change impact too much Soviets.
The maxim was an offensive weapon, designed to advance and to follow troops (conscripts).
it's why it had small cone of fire, and fast setup.
The Maxim in this game was meant to be a support weapon. The problem was too many people were just using them as their main offensive unit.
Add the toning down of the T-70 and the flack halftrack, sustain offense is now problematic.
I'm not sure that these are serious issues. I agree that the Soviets need some kind of love but I haven't worked out exactly the best way to do that yet. Probably starting with Conscripts would be good.
Posts: 1585 | Subs: 1
The maxim is a straight upgrade to the conscript squad right now. You get a script squad, but with suppression, why wouldn't you always pick this unit up?
MGs are supposed to be static units that you fight around not paired or tripled up.
The changes I see are a good attempt at addressing a real problem, Maxims are too good and cannot be balanced in their current form without making them feel unresponsive.
Posts: 976
The Maxim in this game was meant to be a support weapon. The problem was too many people were just using them as their main offensive unit.
I'm not sure that these are serious issues. I agree that the Soviets need some kind of love but I haven't worked out exactly the best way to do that yet. Probably starting with Conscripts would be good.
Wandering if starting 1 conscript already build would be too strong ? (manpower was a Soviet strength)
Who would win a fight between a OKW pios vs 1 conscrit + 1 eng ? the Sov probably ?
Posts: 976
Penals are quite capable of dealing with light vehicles, and shred infantry. Their satchel charges are potent and require care as well.
The maxim is a straight upgrade to the conscript squad right now. You get a script squad, but with suppression, why wouldn't you always pick this unit up?
MGs are supposed to be static units that you fight around not paired or tripled up.
The changes I see are a good attempt at addressing a real problem, Maxims are too good and cannot be balanced in their current form without making them feel unresponsive.
Maxim may be too good, but i rather have an Hmg42 from T0 anytime instead. (with armor piercing in bonus).
My solution:
-Pack faster then now, must have the time to pack upon getting a flaming nade, or hit from a mortar);
-Get out of building faster then now;
-Suppress more, but less than an mg42;
-Do less damage, but more then an mg42;
-Cost more then now;
-Slower to setup then now;
-10% less firing arc than a Mg42 with same transversal speed.
-No Vet ability;
-Vet 1,2,3 close too the same bonus as the Mg42
Now you have a defensive HMG.
So no more spamming, but you got something durable for your investment. (Soviet style)
But it won't solve the anemic soviet offense...
Posts: 525
An interesting solution I saw a few days ago would be non-doctrinal Ppsh's and instead of the doctrinal assault package give them 2 or 3 SVT's maybe with lower damage than Penals...?
Posts: 1954
Realistically, maxim spam wasn't fun even when you're the one doing it. I'm fine with the nerf but they should have made Cons better and possibly not nerfed Guards. They probably did have to take the flamer away from Penals because it made some maps unplayable against Soviets. I quit playing OKW for awhile because of the flamer Penal blobs (Penals to Guards to T70, yeah fun).
Posts: 2272 | Subs: 1
The maxim change impact too much Soviets.
T2:All the change made where good individually, but has a whole, it remove all the teeth the Sovs had.
The maxim was an offensive weapon, designed to advance and to follow troops (conscripts).
it's why it had small cone of fire, and fast setup.
Having changed that, The Soviets now lack basic offense and attack follow-up.
Their mortars alone aren't good enough to sustain an offensive because it fire to slowly.
Add the toning down of the T-70 and the flack halftrack, sustain offense is now problematic.
T1:
Penals changes are good, but the flamer was the trade off for not building T2 (no mgs), but now again Sovs lost a great offensive weapon, but got better defense.
This also lead to the Katusha being a too great option (Offensive/defensive), now it's way too common.
Now you need T1 + T2 or T2 + and a gards doctrine and both are too slow.
So we need more focus on giving the Sovs a faster offensive.
It's only my opinion.(from a 4vs4 random automatch player...)
where
is
the
replay?
Posts: 3145 | Subs: 2
where
is
the
replay?
Fat chance getting a reply from a well known Allied fanboy, he has his own logic.
Posts: 578
I'm not sure that these are serious issues. I agree that the Soviets need some kind of love but I haven't worked out exactly the best way to do that yet. Probably starting with Conscripts would be good.
Allowing cons to upgrade a single DP would fill a gap.
Posts: 976
where
is
the
replay?
Did
you
read
the
post
?
No need of replay...
Posts: 976
Fat chance getting a reply from a well known Allied fanboy, he has his own logic.
It's a global analysis, there is no replay, it's from many matches, playing and watching them... i must be dumb to have to answer that.
Posts: 3145 | Subs: 2
Allowing cons to upgrade a single DP would fill a gap.
What's going to be the point of Guards then?
Cons get DP, Penals get AT rifles, why the need for doctrinal infantry like Guards?
It's a global analysis, there is no replay, it's from many matches, playing and watching them... i must be dumb to have to answer that.
You just did, so...
Posts: 49
Looking at the results of the GCS placement matches, RIP Soviets with or without maxim. The only wins by people playing Soviets were ones where the same player won both matches, meaning that the skill difference was great enough that the faction didn't matter. In all the matches where each player won one game, the Soviets always lost.
Realistically, maxim spam wasn't fun even when you're the one doing it. I'm fine with the nerf but they should have made Cons better and possibly not nerfed Guards. They probably did have to take the flamer away from Penals because it made some maps unplayable against Soviets. I quit playing OKW for awhile because of the flamer Penal blobs (Penals to Guards to T70, yeah fun).
Will be interesting to ser hon them fare post group stages. Haven't watched any placement games but in the streams featuring Soviets I've watched they've looked pretty solid.
Posts: 578
What's going to be the point of Guards then?
Cons get DP, Penals get AT rifles, why the need for doctrinal infantry like Guards?
If you went T2 and want inf with PTRS? And you don't get guards because they have a DP. You get guards for elite inf that is versatile. They'll always be better than cons, therefore they have intrinsic value.
Your post is a straw man.
Livestreams
50 | |||||
32 | |||||
14 | |||||
1814 | |||||
229 | |||||
17 | |||||
15 | |||||
9 | |||||
2 | |||||
2 |
Ladders Top 10
-
#Steam AliasWL%Streak
- 1.830222.789+36
- 2.561204.733+3
- 3.34957.860+14
- 4.916404.694-1
- 5.280162.633+8
- 6.305114.728+1
- 7.721440.621+3
- 8.14758.717+1
- 9.17046.787-1
- 10.1019662.606+4
Replay highlight
- cblanco ★
- 보드카 중대
- VonManteuffel
- Heartless Jäger
Board Info
wien-badsanierung
8 posts in the last week
36 posts in the last month
Welcome our newest member, Ellmjnhiem
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM