Login

russian armor

Feelings after the Decemberpatch

PAGES (10)down
31 Dec 2018, 01:32 AM
#21
avatar of Doomlord52

Posts: 960

Pretty much everything feels fine right now. There's still a few outliers, but it shouldn't be hard to bring them back in line. The game is in a really good place right now.

The only units I can really complain about are:

JLI
Pretty obvious. They're incredibly strong for the cost with that G43 upgrade. As others have said, the G43 should probably cost a bit more, since at 45 muni it's basically a "free" upgrade - and OKW usually floats a ton, anyway. Maybe make the G43 cost 60, and tone down its crit threshold? They might also work as a 3-man squad with very large spacing, which would help them further fit the role of a 'light recon' type infantry.

221/223
This thing is pretty bad right now. The armor is too weak for it to fight like the Ost 222, and the upgrade is incredibly expensive. That would be alright if the MG actually did anything, but its pen is so low it can't fight any light vehicles. I'd either lower its cost dramatically (200/10 + 100/5 upgrade), or increase the MG pen so that it can fight halftracks/UCs.

Sturmtiger
It still works, but the model-wiping AoE is just a bit too small for what it is. In yellow cover (so, late game craters), you'll often land a rocket directly on 1 model of a squad, but only wipe a few of them. Considering the obvious animation, limited range, high cost, and late-game arrival, I think landing directly on a squad should probably wipe it. And like A. Soldier said, the arc really needs to be increased so that it actually hits where it should. Late game it lands short a LOT due to craters.

Assault Engineers
Not on the voting list for some reason, but these need to be toned down. The main problem is that they show up instantly and can do a lot of damage - especially against OKW, who won't have an MG out. Any easy fix might be locking them behind 1-2 points rather than 0, so that you can't have your army made entirely of them (at least in larger team games). Alternatively, the 4-man squad + upgrade solution suggested earlier could work, too.
31 Dec 2018, 01:53 AM
#22
avatar of Sturmpanther
Lead Strategist Badge

Posts: 5441 | Subs: 36

I am sorry. I forgot the USA pios. Glad you people wrote some Infos down here.
31 Dec 2018, 02:28 AM
#23
avatar of Grumpy

Posts: 1954



Assault Engineers
Not on the voting list for some reason, but these need to be toned down. The main problem is that they show up instantly and can do a lot of damage - especially against OKW, who won't have an MG out. Any easy fix might be locking them behind 1-2 points rather than 0, so that you can't have your army made entirely of them (at least in larger team games). Alternatively, the 4-man squad + upgrade solution suggested earlier could work, too.


I'd rather see the 1 CP solution. Another possibility might be changing them from a call-in to buildable with a time that is at least as long as rifles. It seems like part of what makes them so strong now is how fast they hit the field.

It was nice having them in the couple of games that I played because they kept me from getting rolled over by Sturmpios at the start.
31 Dec 2018, 02:44 AM
#24
avatar of TheGentlemenTroll

Posts: 1044 | Subs: 1


On one hand, I think this is an advantage that is very much understated or never considered.

On the other hand, these units do appear from the edge of the map, which means this doesn't quite have as large of an impact as you would think it would.

Anyway, as someone who has wanted more discussion on assault engineers to take place, what do you and everyone else feel the problem is with them? Obviously your post implies you think they bring too much early pressure, but I'd like to hear why you think this is the case (the problematic factor(s) that leads to this).

For what it's worth, I'm leaning towards Sander's suggestion for them because I think their early combat performance is straight up too high.



Ya I agree with Sander's approach, CEs have huge early game potential in my opinion and get the flamer super quick considering LT comes out much faster. Putting them behind the LT+Capt or full tech might help delay it a bit.

Ive personally had more trouble with CEs as OKW than OST. CQC maps in larger team games are a nightmare to face flamer CEs that shred almost everything and then get a powerful anti garrison tool pretty quickly.

I like the RA idea, as of now it feels like they dont really drop models to focus fire like other comparable early game cqc units unless they charge over red cover.
31 Dec 2018, 02:57 AM
#25
avatar of addvaluejack

Posts: 261

JLI
Increase initial cost to 280~300 MP, increase G43 upgrade cost to 60 MU. I don't think we need to change it CP requirements or combat stats, at least for now.

221
Increase its mg's penetration or move 5 fuel cost from initial cost to 223 upgrade cost. I don't think we should increase its armor, because this will make this unit too good against infantry.

Assault Engineers
Make them require CP1 and lock the flamethrower, the rest part of this unit is fine.

Churchill Crocodile
I think we should tuned down the whole Churchill series' vehicle rotation speed.
31 Dec 2018, 04:48 AM
#26
avatar of murky depths

Posts: 607

There's probably a half dozen tweaks that could be used either way, but the biggest issue to me -- that is both overpowered and outright game ruining, is the JLI.

EDIT: to clarify what I mean by game ruining, I mean that's all I pretty much see now, to the point that it's super stale. Blobbing has always been an "issue", but JLI blobbing is just an incredibly frustrating experience to deal with, and a monotonous one to use.

31 Dec 2018, 06:16 AM
#27
avatar of #12345678

Posts: 69

Why you guys hate AE so much? It’s a extremely CQB unit that only effective at beginning. Any elite axis infantry can beat them out of field before they close in.
Well, some OKW player needs to learn how to handle CQB unit firstly. USF players have to tackle sturmpioneers rush from the beginning, and no one ask for a 3 men sturmpioneer.
31 Dec 2018, 06:27 AM
#28
avatar of SupremeStefan

Posts: 1220



Its also an insane amount of early pressure since you get two squads right out of the gate, one of which is probably the best CQB early unit.


I personally think the patch overall was great, all the factions feel pretty good to play and the new commanders are quite good.

In my opinion usf finnaly have agresive early game and finnaly something refreshing if u guys wonna nerf them i can promise anyone will not play it no more because assault enginers are only good at start not really good at late game. Its funny because i can bet that if u usf would have clone unit of assault granadiers at cp0 most people like vipper would cry OP!. Dont kill that opening because its really something new and cool. Just make flamethrower bulidable after first full officer or make it 70 muni. I know my english is not perfect but i want be part of this community try understand.
31 Dec 2018, 08:26 AM
#29
avatar of Sander93

Posts: 3166 | Subs: 6

I think Assault Engineers should stay 0CP and 5 men so USF can keep a healthy alternative (aggressive) opening, as diversity = fun. 4 men was too ineffective to be viable.


Locking flamer behind tech and moving 0.9 RA into vet1 should make them manageable enough early game if Axis can set up some favorable engagements, while still being very strong in ambushes (just like Sturmpioneers).
31 Dec 2018, 08:27 AM
#30
avatar of blvckdream

Posts: 2458 | Subs: 1

Assault Engineers are too strong in early game. Easy fix would be to lock the 5th man behind veterancy 2. That way they are less powerful in the first minutes while still scaling well. Current Assault Engineers are only OP in early to mid-game so this would fix them perfectly.
31 Dec 2018, 09:05 AM
#31
avatar of Syraw

Posts: 104

Since AEs are able to hold their owb agaibst sturms. they should be 300 MP, and nothibg else changed
31 Dec 2018, 09:23 AM
#32
avatar of LeOverlord

Posts: 310

Lock this weapon behind tech, lock that weapon behind tech too, oh also lock this weapon behind tech, and finally lock this thing for when you win the game. Seems a little bit wrong to me. If you keep locking weapons behind tech, USF will start fighting with slings and nerf blasters so that it will be "balanced". What's wrong with Assault Engineers? Flamethrower? Fine, increase the cost and the duration to get the weapon. On the other hand, if your issue is the CQB, then replace one of their Grease Guns with a M1A1 Carbine.
31 Dec 2018, 10:18 AM
#33
avatar of |GB| The Lnt.599

Posts: 323 | Subs: 1

The thing with the sturmtiger is that it would be fine as it is, even compared to the avre, if it didnt have the elevation issue which causes the rocket to drop (a bit to a lot) earlier which makes it mis targets. And maybe allow the rocket to be able to pierce world objects.

this because, the sturmtiger rocket flies in a straight downward line, where as the avre mortar shell flies in a curve/parabool over most objects making it less likely to collide with objects.

in this way those (hard to balance) units are a bit more on pare at least.
31 Dec 2018, 10:34 AM
#34
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1

Lock this weapon behind tech, lock that weapon behind tech too, oh also lock this weapon behind tech, and finally lock this thing for when you win the game. Seems a little bit wrong to me. If you keep locking weapons behind tech, USF will start fighting with slings and nerf blasters so that it will be "balanced". What's wrong with Assault Engineers? Flamethrower? Fine, increase the cost and the duration to get the weapon. On the other hand, if your issue is the CQB, then replace one of their Grease Guns with a M1A1 Carbine.

Units available before minute 1 should be balanced around mainline infantry (grenadiers optimally), most mainline infantry have access to weapon upgrades.

That creates the issues that CP 0 call in units are either too strong when they arrive are to weak in mid game. By allowing weapons upgrades also one can adjust their power level according to the time frame. This does not have to be side tech.

In the cases of assault engineers having many flamers units burning everything is problematic.
31 Dec 2018, 10:49 AM
#35
avatar of Sander93

Posts: 3166 | Subs: 6

Lock this weapon behind tech, lock that weapon behind tech too, oh also lock this weapon behind tech, and finally lock this thing for when you win the game. Seems a little bit wrong to me.

[…]

Flamethrower? Fine, increase the cost and the duration to get the weapon.


What's really wrong with it? It's a good way to be able to balance early units by delaying their weapon upgrades without having to make said upgrades more expensive. More expensive upgrades would create disbalance between costs across factions (why should Assault Engineers have to pay more for their flamethrower than other factions while it does the same) and they would be a nerf the unit in all stages of the game (as replacing a unit becomes more expensive) rather than just delaying their early game power spike. Tying upgrades to tech has several major advantages.
31 Dec 2018, 11:14 AM
#36
avatar of SupremeStefan

Posts: 1220

I think Assault Engineers should stay 0CP and 5 men so USF can keep a healthy alternative (aggressive) opening, as diversity = fun. 4 men was too ineffective to be viable.


Locking flamer behind tech and moving 0.9 RA into vet1 should make them manageable enough early game if Axis can set up some favorable engagements, while still being very strong in ambushes (just like Sturmpioneers).

this

People get used to they win early engagements vs usf, fact is that usf can actually suprise u now not only rifle spam. #ADAPT
If u nerf them to 4 man or something like that then all this rework patch will go to trash so think twice . I can only agree that flamethrower is a bit strong but rest is perfect.
31 Dec 2018, 11:17 AM
#37
avatar of blancat

Posts: 810

LOL

OKW have free 0.87 size and 4 stg pio at start

OKW whining boys are compalaining USF have early strong unit because their strumpio lost "not free" unit


so funny

31 Dec 2018, 11:19 AM
#38
avatar of blancat

Posts: 810

move assualt engineer to cp1, ok

then replace okw starting unit from strumpio to volk

31 Dec 2018, 11:22 AM
#39
avatar of MakiesKurisu

Posts: 130

Pathfinders are UP.

Pathfinders
290mp to call-in
Target size 1 (.71 at vet 3)
dmg at range 5/10/15/20/25/30/35 with 2xm1a1+2xM1 scouped, not includ 40% critical.
22.468/17.018/13.806/11.734/10.722/11.158/11.592
M1 scouped is prior to bars, meaning that they pick M1 scoped rather than BARs when losing models. In fact, it's a good way to waste munis to arm they with double BARs.

JLI
250mp to call-in, can be deploy from buildings
Target size .8 (.57 at vet 3)
dmg at range 5/10/15/20/25/30/35 with 3xkar98+1xG43 scouped, not includ 75% critical and ambush bouns.
17.607/15.634/14.108/12.874/11.866/10.623/9.383
+50% accruacy ambush bouns for 5 sec
G43 scouped have .9 accuracy against cover and garrison

Volks
250mp to build
Target size 1(.77 at vet 3)
dmg at range 5/10/15/20/25/30/35 with 5xkar98
20.035/17.3/15.19/13.51/12.14/10.395/9.035

Grens
240mp to build
Target size .9(,70 at vet 3)
dmg at range 5/10/15/20/25/30/35 with 4xkar98
20.296/17.496/15.294/13.488/12.004/10.392/9.052

Coclusion:
As a long-range combat units, pathfinders deal even less dmg than Grens in 10~25, with higher target size, and much costy.

Idea:
Giving pathfinders "mark inf" ability the same as storm officers to make them a long-range support units and different from JLI.
Pathfinders
270mp to call-in
getting acess to "mark inf" after any officer unlocked.
M1D have .75 accuracy against cover and garrison.

JLI
290mp to call-in or deployed from buildings
move ambush bonus to vet 3

Airborne Company
Making air drop M2HB and ATGs as pathfinders' ablity, can air drop them after the officers unlocked.
Adding 2 abilities
P-47 strafing run
the same as Mobile support
Airdorp supply
cost fuels to drop munis
31 Dec 2018, 11:31 AM
#40
avatar of Sander93

Posts: 3166 | Subs: 6

jump backJump back to quoted post31 Dec 2018, 11:17 AMblancat
LOL

OKW have free 0.87 size and 4 stg pio at start

OKW whining boys are compalaining USF have early strong unit because their strumpio lost "not free" unit


so funny



Let's not compare 1 stat and draw conclusions from there, shall we?

Sturmioneers
- 300MP
- DPM is 64/28,8/3,8 at ranges 3/15/28
- lose 25% of their DPM if one model drops on approach
- No default weapon upgrade
- 0,87 target size
- goes up against high close range DPM Riflemen
- have bad combat veterancy at very high requirements

Assault Engineers
- 280MP
- DPM is 67/7/0,8 at ranges 10/18/30
- lose 20% of their DPM if one model drops on approach
- default flamethrower upgrade
- 0,9 target size
- goes up against low close range DPM Volksgrenadiers
- have quite good combat veterancy at reasonable requirements



TLDR Assault Engineers are better than Sturmpioneers while being cheaper. Their early game performance should be toned down a bit. They are performing at about 110-120% efficiency for their cost/role. Giving them 1,0 target size at vet0 (0,9 at vet1) and locking flamethrower behind tech should put them closer to 100% efficiency for vanilla performance.
PAGES (10)down
1 user is browsing this thread: 1 guest

Livestreams

unknown 30
unknown 24
unknown 19
Germany 981
Poland 3
Russian Federation 1

Ladders Top 10

  • #
    Steam Alias
    W
    L
    %
    Streak
Data provided by Relic Relic Entertainment

Replay highlight

VS
  • U.S. Forces flag cblanco ★
  • The British Forces flag 보드카 중대
  • Oberkommando West flag VonManteuffel
  • Ostheer flag Heartless Jäger
uploaded by XXxxHeartlessxxXX

Board Info

799 users are online: 799 guests
0 post in the last 24h
8 posts in the last week
34 posts in the last month
Registered members: 49112
Welcome our newest member, Buchh647
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM