Teamgame dominant meta

Wait a second. So the otsheer dive bomb would be 'OP' for killing howies. But the ILL2 bombing run not? It does they exact same as the dive bomb.

I also dont get why crocodile should be nerfed. Its pretty expensive and comes late game. OKW will have vet 5 obersoldaten and so on. If all allied AI stuff is going to get nerfed. Then how are we gonna counter vet 5 obers for example? They walk straight trough vickers fire and can win vs 3 riflemen all bar equiped.

I also dont know why the elefant would need a nerf. Its easy to swarm and siriously misses half its shots.

I'm simply answering your question dude. Neither the t34 nor the elephant were changed and they were the ones at play here.

Don't you think it's a bit of a stretch claiming the Allies are gonna have less map control due to some changes and therefore they won't be able to use cheap t34s to counter an elephant? Brosras didn't even have a massive mp or fuel storage to implement his strategy. He just used his tanks in groups instead of sending them in piece meal.

First of all. Can you actually link me to the point in the video where Brosras dives in and successfully managed to finish off the Elefant?

The only time I see the Elefant getting assaulted is with 3x T34's, which are all lost in the process, and the Elefant is still alive (900MP lost vs 0MP).

Secondly, the only T-34 dive that was successful was vs a King Tiger. The only reason this was successful was that nearby infantry did not even attempt to snare the T-34's, even though they had multiple opportunities to do that.

Finally, the Axis team had a massive munitions float that they didn't use (e.g., to lay mines).

Secondly, it's not just "some changes". When you try playing the other side (and not just Brits that are still stronger than Soviets/USF), you're going to see how the following things had a massive impact:
- Mortar nerfs
- Penal nerfs
- Maxim nerfs
- Cromwell nerfs
- Land mattress nerfs

Brosras' team did make use of all of the above (though, not very abusively). What really allowed them to win the game though was: north side in that specific map & calliope.

I agree with Mr. Smith.

Also pls. Known 4vs4 clan vs 1vs1 players... and allies got north side on lanzerath ambush. Everybody knows, that topside is way better!!! Its like moscau in 2vs2, or reshwinter....

You saw the 3vs3: C.b vs loxley clan? Where okw raped 2 soviets+ brit( because of cons play)

He asked me how I'd counter an elephant and i gave him an example. I haven't said anything more than that. Go ahead and nerf whichever units you so desire, I'm simply answering a question MrSmith asked me.

I respect you Mr Smith but you are way off mark with these proposed changes.

I would like to know if it will have any impact to launch IL2 with the previous patches, in the situation vs ELE/JT now o before suggestions mainpost.

Edit: With the launch WFA axis has air supremacy due to FlackTruck

First of all. Can you actually link me to the point in the video where Brosras dives in and successfully managed to finish off the Elefant?

The only time I see the Elefant getting assaulted is with 3x T34's, which are all lost in the process, and the Elefant is still alive (900MP lost vs 0MP).

Secondly, the only T-34 dive that was successful was vs a King Tiger. The only reason this was successful was that nearby infantry did not even attempt to snare the T-34's, even though they had multiple opportunities to do that.

Finally, the Axis team had a massive munitions float that they didn't use (e.g., to lay mines).

Secondly, it's not just "some changes". When you try playing the other side (and not just Brits that are still stronger than Soviets/USF), you're going to see how the following things had a massive impact:
- Mortar nerfs
- Penal nerfs
- Maxim nerfs
- Cromwell nerfs
- Land mattress nerfs

Brosras' team did make use of all of the above (though, not very abusively). What really allowed them to win the game though was: north side in that specific map & calliope.

Man here I go and try and answer one small question you ask me and you decide to rant about something I'm not even denying. You keep moving off topic and arguing things I'm not even talking about. Please understand I'm not saying Allies op or Axis OP. You asked me "how would you go about trying to take on a brummbarr elephant combo as soviets or USF" and I gave you arguments for both (in another post which you never replied to) and an example doing it as soviets. I never once said it was a piece of cake or always works (which it shouldn't) I only stated how I would go about doing it. If you think it's too difficult that's your opinion. Go find followers to agree with you if it makes you happy.
If you wanna go on about how the game I posted went go do it to someone else not me. I do think even know what you're trying to argue here either.

If you actually read my first post you'd have seen that i clearly stated when the elephant goes down in replay (~41 min mark).

more and more i play and think about it, i think the changes make sense - high priorities one especially.

m8 scott used to be two shotted - smae with stuart. in the same sense i think mediums shouldnt be able to be two shotted by JT or ELE.

and please remove command tank aura affecting allies.

Man here I go and try and answer one small question you ask me and you decide to rant about something I'm not even denying. You keep moving off topic and arguing things I'm not even talking about. Please understand I'm not saying Allies op or Axis OP. You asked me "how would you go about trying to take on a brummbarr elephant combo as soviets or USF" and I gave you arguments for both (in another post which you never replied to) and an example doing it as soviets. I never once said it was a piece of cake or always works (which it shouldn't) I only stated how I would go about doing it. If you think it's too difficult that's your opinion. Go find followers to agree with you if it makes you happy.
If you wanna go on about how the game I posted went go do it to someone else not me. I do think even know what you're trying to argue here either.

If you actually read my first post you'd have seen that i clearly stated when the elephant goes down in replay (~41 min mark).

https://youtu.be/P9OCWfm9al0?t=41m30s

So I looked up. I looked at the entire scene, where the Elefant, for no reason, is ordered to move forward, to OVERPASS a T-34, effectively getting itself outflanked.

To make the fail even worse, the Elefant turns its back towards the enemy front.

In this case, the Elefant dies to a massive misplay, after it overextends and gets itself voluntarily flanked.

The reason I got confused however, was that Brosras used the same strategy you proclaim as the cure earlier on:
https://youtu.be/P9OCWfm9al0?t=27m48s

The fact that the Elefant exists causes Brosras to commit the sacrificial T-34's to move in. He sends in 3 of them (not piecemeal as indicate), goes through an unmined flank and of course, loses all of them.

By that point, the Elefant has already payed for itself, and I didn't even count the direct kills that Elefant scored.

So, yes. Elefants do die to massive misplay and overextending. That's not a very reliable way to counter an Elefant though, is it?

Is there another massive-attack vs the Elefant I missed?

Seriously, this entire topic is way ridiculous... listening stupid suggestions from 4v4, talking about examples in particular games, not even focusing on real unbalance.
You are not even trying to balance the game, you are changing it everytime, not exactly same thing.
I know you can't balance correcly this game.
On SC2, it's hard with only 3 factions and they only try to balance the 1V1 mode. How do you expect to do great job by changing everything at the same time on 5 factions with more than 6-7 doctrine every one in 1v1 2v2 3v3 and 4v4. Good luck mate ^^
However, you still can try... But process step by step with real logic construction.
Unabalance is most of the time due to OP doctrine like Land Matress doctrine for british for example. We don't ask you to cancel everything, but it would be nice to work on price and timing only. Make a patch and wait for feedbacks for 1 or 2 changes. It's like trying to find a frequency on radio but doing it by modifying amplitude, scale, frequency or anything else at the same time. I still wonder how you can be surprised by unexpected feedbacks.
SO... i know it can be arrogant to say my following words but 4v4 opinion isnt interesting at all, Sorry folks. I'm repeating but this entire discussion is pointless, plus people in 4V4 are like 95% of the time not as good as a top 500 in 2v2 or 1v1.
In conclusion, even if we agree about OP units according decent players in 1v1 or 2v2, only change timing or price as first step; and don't allow 3v3 4v4 players to claim patchs.

SO... i know it can be arrogant to say my following words but 4v4 opinion isnt interesting at all, Sorry folks. I'm repeating but this entire discussion is pointless, plus people in 4V4 are like 95% of the time not as good as a top 500 in 2v2 or 1v1.

What you are describing here is a voluntary bias against 4v4. This bias claims that if we try to rebalance around 4v4 this will ruin 1v1's.

This bias against 4v4 is usually supported by an excuse that perfect balance in teamgames is unachievable. While this is a good excuse we could use if we didn't even want to bother with making 4v4 experience more palatable, it's just that; an excuse not a rational argument.

However, if you actually had taken the time to read the suggestions on the first post in the first place, you would immediately notice that:
- None of the units up for rebalancing even appear in 1v1 meta
- At no point do we try to make the affected units unviable for 1v1 (if we can help it)
- We are merely trying to make them less ridiculous to 4v4 meta.

Yet, 350 posts in, I have yet to be presented with a rational argument as to why the proposed changes would "ruin 1v1" or "be bad for 4v4's".

And this is what irks me in the end; people don't come here to comment on potential changes to the game; they don't even bother reading the suggestions. People only here to reaffirm their own biases.

I agree with you about the point changing non 1v1 meta stuff to get a best experience in 4v4 is legit argument. Let's focus on non 1v1 meta doctrine is ok. But suggestions about changing stats on core units are just irrelevant in 4v4 or 3v3.
Anyway, your behaviour is way respecteful for the community, congratz mate. But i think you maybe need to be a bit harsh with real stupid suggestions.

I agree with you about the point changing non 1v1 meta stuff to get a best experience in 4v4 is legit argument. Let's focus on non 1v1 meta doctrine is ok. But suggestions about changing stats on core units are just irrelevant.
Anyway, your behaviour is way respecteful for the community, congratz mate. But i think you maybe need to be a bit harsh with real stupid suggestions.

What I'm actually proposing are high/highest-priority changes and none of this really affect 1v1 meta that much.

I've also added a section for changes that will probably have to be enacted due to those units being overpowered in 1v1.

- Sure; nobody has seen the Crocodile in competitive play for months. However, that's 100% due to the fact that you only used to see Mobile Assault/Arty Cover. The Crocodile was a 2nd grade cheese. However, post-nerfs, Crocodile is 1st-grate cheese. Again.

This is similar to the DSHK vs Maxim situation (how often did you see DSHK's before GCS?). I would argue that you are now going to see the Crocodile as often as you see the DSHK.

- Stugs will eventually have to get a nerf when OST T3/T4 gets rebalanced.

- JP4 is already too strong for what you pay for it. Again, other changes in OKW will force us to change the unit. JP4 follows OKW-release type of veterancy even after multiple reworks when OKW has access to full resource income.

All in all, I'm not actually proposing core-unit changes as a package for teamgame changes. I'm just providing a context about other things for which changes seem to be inevitable (and dictated by 1v1 balance).

That way, we won't have people pointing out that they need the Elefant to counter the Crocodile, etc.

Each of the 5 factions have (bigger or smaller) issues that hamstring their flexibility in 1v1. Hopefully, those issues will be hammered out over time. Given the rate we've been allowed to enact changes so far, that will require a certain depth of time. What I'm just proposing here is a small package of changes to keep 4v4 afloat while those changes are enacted.

im not targetting only you when im talking about core units suggestions. It's cool mate.
But you said something funny here about DSHK. ^^
Before GCS, there was a lot of abuse with DSHK. Like there was a lot of abuse with M4C.

im not targetting only you when im talking about core units suggestions. It's cool mate.
But you said something funny here about DSHK. ^^
Before GCS, there was a lot of abuse with DSHK. Like there was a lot of abuse with M4C.

My mistake; I actually meant pre-WBP. Guards Motor was THE cheese pre-WBP, even though M4C abuse was already strong.

I don't suppose we could keep the range on the Croc's Flamethrower but make the damage closer to the WASP's DPS and rate of fire (Not AOE though, that would be overnerf territory)? I mean it is a non turreted Flamerthrower (Like the forgotten Flame Hetzer) and the Churchill Croc is historically known for range.

Looking at the Croc, I feel it's devastating not because of it's range but rather, it can spew flames practically non stop and not in bursts like the WASP. So it really is overpowered in that sense. It's sure overall base damage might need a small nerf too. I just don't want to see it's range match the Turreted KV8. Just as long as it still causes chaos with Support Weapons not being able to comfortably fight it out without moving, it would fulfill it's purpose.

https://youtu.be/P9OCWfm9al0?t=41m30s

So I looked up. I looked at the entire scene, where the Elefant, for no reason, is ordered to move forward, to OVERPASS a T-34, effectively getting itself outflanked.

To make the fail even worse, the Elefant turns its back towards the enemy front.

In this case, the Elefant dies to a massive misplay, after it overextends and gets itself voluntarily flanked.

The reason I got confused however, was that Brosras used the same strategy you proclaim as the cure earlier on:
https://youtu.be/P9OCWfm9al0?t=27m48s

The fact that the Elefant exists causes Brosras to commit the sacrificial T-34's to move in. He sends in 3 of them (not piecemeal as indicate), goes through an unmined flank and of course, loses all of them.

By that point, the Elefant has already payed for itself, and I didn't even count the direct kills that Elefant scored.

So, yes. Elefants do die to massive misplay and overextending. That's not a very reliable way to counter an Elefant though, is it?

Is there another massive-attack vs the Elefant I missed?

Thanks for looking into the video further. I don't ever remember remember "proclaiming" this to be the "cure" for countering the elephant. Thanks again for putting words in my mouth and consistently trying to disagree with me as opposed to finding common ground.

This is the strategy I would use to take down elephants. I think brosras has the right idea with diving with all his tanks as opposed to one by one, but where his plan failed (the first time) was that he dived at the wrong time and with no support. The second time he dived (and took out the elephant) he had his USF ally helping distract the elephant (which is why it moved forward btw) and was far more effective. I'd the enemy is blobbing their tanks, work as a team to take them out, or force them to react by forcing engagements elsewhere. Note the game ended a few minutes after the elephant was killed.

The problem here isn't the elephant being over powered with its alpha damage, it's with a lack of team coordination. That's why first dove failed and second one succeeded.

Another option he could've done was attack the right base sector since the axis would then have to spread their forces and leave the elephant undefended.

Elephants weakness is mobility. Exploit it instead of fighting the losing battles and playing into the enemy hands.

- USA Rifles still have 2x BARs.
They just don't have 2x M1919A6

Thx for the precision !!!

Wait a second. So the otsheer dive bomb would be 'OP' for killing howies. But the ILL2 bombing run not? It does they exact same as the dive bomb.

I don't think anyone is arguing that that the il2 precision bombing strike was fine and, if I recall correctly, Smith even stated that they might consider looking at it as well. However, there is are significant differences between the two

1) cost: the dive bomb costs 160 munition compared to 200 that the bombing run costs
2) warning: the bombing run is a lot easier to spot since it comes with flares (also the sound cue is not bugged like it sometimes happens with the stuka dive bomb where you can't hear the only warning you get). The plane also comes in from offmap and is visible.
3) damage and aoe: the aoe for the stuka close air support is a circle that has close to the same diameter as the bombing run is in length, however the bombing run is narrow and therefore also harder to use and easier to dodge

I'm not saying that either ability is fine, but there are distinct features of the dive bomb that just make it flat out better.

For most maps and situations the stuka will also hit faster than the precision bombing run will come in. The bigger the maps become, the bigger the difference will become in most cases.