How to nerf Mobile Defense without it becoming CAS
Posts: 479
Posts: 63
What about tying the Puma to T2 BUT you have to tech battlephase 2? It'd leave Ost with a hope against the manpower draining t70 and stuart.
Posts: 479
Hey everybody, I would assume most people are pretty tired of Mobile Defense being such a crutch for Ostheer but are afraid of it being overnerfed and it's repercussions on the game. Puma is probably too strong right now but I feel tying the unit to Battlephase 3 would make it come out too late. My solution is to tie the Command Tank to Tier 3 so players are unable to rely on Puma's with the Command Tank Aura to deal with allied mediums so cost effectively. My other change is a bit experimental, I would move the Osttruppen Reserves ability to either 1 or 2 CP (probably 2) but only allow it to deploy a single squad of Osttruppen that would come with an LMG42 automatically upgraded (this could also be changed along with the squads cost). The squad would cost more manpower than the regular Osttruppen squad but I am not really sure what would be an appropriate cost. Maybe about 250 manpower or so, but that is a broad guesstimate. I feel like this would make it tougher for Ostheer players to replace losses so easily with this commander. The Puma would still be a way to deal with light vehicles that can absolute dominate Ostheer in numbers.Apologies I meant Battlephase 2 not Battlephase 3. Battlephase 3 would be pretty stupid.
Posts: 1194 | Subs: 29
I think overall it would be better to make it buildable from T2, that extra 40 seconds or so delay from the build time should make an impact. Similar for the command tank it should be buildable from T3, probably accompanied by a 10 fuel discount.
Posts: 626 | Subs: 1
Locking the puma behind battle phase 2 is too late, these days battle phase 2 tech is quite expensive.
I think overall it would be better to make it buildable from T2, that extra 40 seconds or so delay from the build time should make an impact. Similar for the command tank it should be buildable from T3, probably accompanied by a 10 fuel discount.
and what if i want to go t4? Command p4 shouldn't be tied to tech becouse it blocks diversity.
Puma idea on the other hand... Is it even possible to add delay to unit in tier sturcture with 0CP requirement?
Posts: 3602 | Subs: 1
Locking the puma behind battle phase 2 is too late, these days battle phase 2 tech is quite expensive.
I think overall it would be better to make it buildable from T2, that extra 40 seconds or so delay from the build time should make an impact. Similar for the command tank it should be buildable from T3, probably accompanied by a 10 fuel discount.
If the Puma is tied to T2 it lost his CP requirement, thus it will potentially hit the field much sooner!
BP2 is a good option because it force the player to tech early and not only stall with a heavy T1 play + a 222.
Otherwise it could also see its CP requirement increased by 1.
About the Command Panzer, tied to T3 or make the aura on timer or has to be trigger but deactivate some tank functions, it could have a speed reduction while the aura is activated and/or cannot use the main gun.
Posts: 269
Mechanized Assault use to be really common a long time ago because squad wipes were so common in the early game, Osteer would often be behind and be cut off and have to resort to calling in a stug to fight t70's and infantry. The puma seems to be taking on this role right now and isn't even great at killing infantry.
Pumas also scale horribly and are mediocre in the late game.
Command Tank does seem too good as a call-in without any teching. Move that to tier 3 at most IMO.
People's complaints are about how common it is, but Relic is the only one with the data about win rates and win rates don't seem great.
Posts: 1194 | Subs: 29
and what if i want to go t4? Command p4 shouldn't be tied to tech becouse it blocks diversity.
Puma idea on the other hand... Is it even possible to add delay to unit in tier sturcture with 0CP requirement?
Make it buildable from t4 also. Do they have to change the puma to a 0 CP requirement to put it in tech?
Posts: 3602 | Subs: 1
Mobile Defense PUMA is ok vs Soviet only because KV1 have been implemented in a specific doctrine (pure chance here since it was not intented) but simply overperform vs USF.
Posts: 1138 | Subs: 2
If that is not sufficient, up the fuel cost of the Puma by 5 or 10 FU.
Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1
Then C. PzIV should be buffed since it more expensive PzIV with a lesser gun both in AI and AT.
Change to PzIV could include giving 2 fire modes. Indirect where the gun work like Stug's -E (it is the same gun after all), direct where the gun has little AOE, medium penetration but get's some deflection damage (40-80).
It aura could should also be changed to improve with veterancy (the veterancy bonuses should be changed to better suit the unit's role).
Posts: 3166 | Subs: 6
The only bad thing about it is that it's getting boring to see it picked every single game.
Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8
I honestly don't think mobile defense is any more powerful than Allied light vehicle rush, it just forces Allies to be the ones having to invest in early AT for once which is something most players just aren't used to.
The only bad thing about it is that it's getting boring to see it picked every single game.
The real strength of this doctrine comes from the fact that it puts a massive plug into the only hole wehr has.
Posts: 632 | Subs: 1
Make it buildable from t4 also. Do they have to change the puma to a 0 CP requirement to put it in tech?
I guess so, I can't find an example showing otherwise.
Units buildable in tiers can still have a CP requirement - no problem at all.
Posts: 2439 | Subs: 6
That way the mobile defense build has another small nerf.
Posts: 3166 | Subs: 6
The real strength of this doctrine comes from the fact that it puts a massive plug into the only hole wehr has.
Yes it supplements the light vehicle play a bit too well, but I don't think that's the doctrine's fault.
The core problem is most likely the cheaper 222, making a light vehicle AI/AT army a bit too cost-effective.
Posts: 3260
The best change would be to put it in T2 REPLACING the 222.
That way the mobile defense build has another small nerf.
That's an interesting idea but I don't think it'd kill it that hard. You're only going to hit the button when you need the Puma, so you can still use the 222. If you need to replace 222s you can use 251 flamers provided you've got the munitions of them.
Yes it supplements the light vehicle play a bit too well, but I don't think that's the doctrine's fault.
The core problem is most likely the cheaper 222, making a light vehicle AI/AT army a bit too cost-effective.
It's completely the doctrine's fault. Mobile Defence was king of the Ostheer meta before SBP because of the stronger Command Tank aura.
Ostheer has relatively quick light armor that's countered hard by light tanks (AEC, Stuart, T-70). With any other doctrine overinvesting in OST T2 is risky: every light vehicle gives you an advantage but delays T3, lengthening the window where the enemy light tank rules the field.
The call-in Puma counters that light tank, allowing you to go heavy T2 without the risk other commanders bear in doing so. That Puma isn't tied to tech, allowing you to field two for the price of tech plus an enemy medium tank. Pumas can deal with their weight in everything short of a heavy tank, which is why the KV-1 of all things is SOV's shock unit against them.
Posts: 626 | Subs: 1
It's hard to change this commander without killing it. Tie puma to t2 with bf 3? Too late to counter other, earlier light vehicules plus with extra 30 fuel and 100mp (i hope i counted correctly) you will get stug3 - way better in destroying vehicules or ostwind - which can also win vs all lights.
switching with 222 (though really creative idea) won;t work becouse 222 will be replace with flame ht.
Something should be done becouse watching every turney game with mobile defense is horribly boring
Posts: 3260
Reworking it into some sort of Command Puma with a limit of one on the field is one option. Another is combining the Osttruppen Reserves and Puma abilities together: the Puma call-in costs 200MP more and calls in an Osttruppen squad with it.
Not so bad if you're getting one, but if you want three it's gonna cost you a lot of manpower.
Posts: 5441 | Subs: 36
That is not true. Like when ppsh cons spam worked very well or Lendlease there was not every game mobible defend.
It changed back to mobile defend, because other soviets strategies got nerfed. Like rushing m4c shermans or just spam 6 cosn with ppsh vs wehrmacht ( where axis had to get g32 to counter it / hold in)
But now after all this nerfs, t70 is the way to rule again
--> Puma is great vs t70.
Livestreams
7 | |||||
3 |
Ladders Top 10
-
#Steam AliasWL%Streak
- 1.829222.789+35
- 2.34957.860+14
- 3.587233.716+3
- 4.1095612.641+19
- 5.882398.689+4
- 6.280162.633+8
- 7.997646.607+1
- 8.379114.769+1
- 9.300113.726-1
- 10.717439.620+1
Replay highlight
- cblanco ★
- 보드카 중대
- VonManteuffel
- Heartless Jäger
Board Info
3 posts in the last week
23 posts in the last month
Welcome our newest member, brainpowerwellnessin
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM