USF only need some decent lategame unit
that
Posts: 206
Posts: 3602 | Subs: 1
You do know you get xp for how much damage is done not how much you kill right? Next time look up its actuall damage in the game stats.
Posts: 1660
that
Posts: 3053
No it doesn't, like ost doesn't need 5-6 man squad.
FBP planned reasonable changes to make jackson more similar to firefly and usf got pershing in a ultra good commander.
We can argue about balance like that, revolving around specific unit.
Other than that if you don't like the usf design feel free to play any other faction.
Please don't reiterate the "i don't care if i have semi auto rifles, free FRP, and best ai mediums in game i need a big tank because they have got it" argument
Posts: 1002 | Subs: 2
No that's a fact, called target size.
Volks have less taget size that any other mainline, aka less durable.
They don't outdps allies wfa mainlines regardless of vetting anyway.
Posts: 1002 | Subs: 2
Wasn't complaining about the XP gain but the poor average killing value of the unit. A mortar is supposed to kill models, not just damage them.
Posts: 2742
*Cough cough nondoc mg for okw argument cough cough add p4 nondoc for okw argument cough.*
Sorry what?
Posts: 1304 | Subs: 13
The non-doc Mg34 was exactly as necessary as the USF mortar.
Posts: 2742
Mortar maybe. RE could have been given mines.
Posts: 1660
Yeah, I know what target size is. I also never mentioned volks' durability, but whatever gives you an excuse to act condescending, I guess.
Ahh, whats more, you probably mean to say that they have a "greater" or "larger" target size, since "less" target size would mean more durable. Still, thats not even true because cons have a larger target size. Anyway, thats taking all of it out of context since infantry sections have a smaller target size but one less man, giving them a theoretical eqyal durability to volks against small arms fire (discounting the RA bonus from tbeir cover bonus). Not that you care, I'm sure actual facts wont stop you from making statements that rely on taking facts out of context (not that you get thsoe facts correct anyway) and acting condescending.
Posts: 1660
*Cough cough nondoc mg for okw argument cough cough add p4 nondoc for okw argument cough.*
Sorry what?
Posts: 284 | Subs: 1
Posts: 3602 | Subs: 1
Id argue that thats a snipers job, not a mortars. In my opninion, a mortars job is to force units to reposition. If the enemy does that, it will only do damage and not get kills.
Posts: 911
*Cough cough nondoc mg for okw argument cough cough add p4 nondoc for okw argument cough.*
Sorry what?
Posts: 911
Wasn't complaining about the XP gain but the poor average killing value of the unit. A mortar is supposed to kill models, not just damage them.
Posts: 3602 | Subs: 1
That's just like your opinion. There is a damn reasonable argument to why the best infantry in the game should not be supported by a mortar that is supposed to kill models.
Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1
Posts: 1660
The main issue is that faction design has been changed from the original faction design but only weakness of the factions, in most cases.
For instance USF where designed to have strong mainline infantry weak support weapons. Their support weapons have received buffs but their mainline infantry has seen little changes.
Imo once USF mortar was introduced the smoke grenades should had been toned down (range, weapon disable of vehicles even out of smoke)or moved to officers and elite infantry.
But is main issue remains that WFA faction are superior to EFA.
Posts: 1660
I completely agree with you so why ISGs kill models so easily?
81 | |||||
52 | |||||
13 | |||||
5 | |||||
27 | |||||
15 | |||||
8 | |||||
7 | |||||
3 | |||||
2 |