USF got too many buffs
- This thread is locked
Posts: 833
MG42 is the best MG in the game and how much better it's AP rounds are compared to MG34 or 50. is a joke. Pak is a monster with TWP
Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1
They should also lose passive sprint (that goes for all unit, it could become timed ability) and shared veterancy, they are pwoerful units and do need it (accept Major).
Captain could get a grenade.
Posts: 1220
USF officer should probably be move to the 1.5 unlock. Than the first unlock could be faster.What about cooldown i mean if u unlock oficer he come after 40 sec
They should also lose passive sprint (could become timed) and shared veterancy (accept Major).
Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1
What about cooldown i mean if u unlock oficer he come after 40 sec after tier unlock
Officers are some times unwanted units by moving to the "vehicles" unlock one cant still get the basic HMG/ATG without the officer. One could also get faster access to these weapons.
Posts: 3602 | Subs: 1
Officers are some times unwanted units by moving to the "vehicles" unlock one cant still get the basic HMG/ATG without the officer. One could also get faster access to these weapons.
Actually I like this idea. worth a try.
Posts: 713 | Subs: 2
Posts: 563
id rather have lt adn capitain to be purchached seperately and give them more supportive abilities, like lt having heroic charge kind of ability or something else.
Posts: 3166 | Subs: 6
USF officer should probably be move to the 1.5 unlock. Than the first unlock could be faster and one would not have to get the "free" officer if one did not want him.
Officers are some times unwanted units by moving to the "vehicles" unlock one cant still get the basic HMG/ATG without the officer. One could also get faster access to these weapons.
That could potentially make Rangers and Paratroopers and other build orders too strong. The officers help keep them in check by taking up popcap and army composition. Also one of the selling points of the Airborne doctrine is that it gives access the support weapons without having to get another officer. Moving the officers would require a complete rebalance of all units strengths and timings because a lot of USF balance depends on the first free officer squad giving a power spike. Faster M2HB could potentially cause balance problems.
Not saying it can't be done, but there are a lot of chain reactions and indirect consequences you need to consider. It would not be a simple change despite appearing as such on first glance.
Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1
That could potentially make Rangers and Paratroopers and other build orders too strong. The officers help keep them in check by taking up popcap and army composition.
That sound funny since Relic seems to want increase diversity. USF elite can be re-balanced if there is need for it.
Also one of the selling points of the Airborne doctrine is that it gives access the support weapons without having to get another officer.
AA and possibly reckon simply need a redesign.
Moving the officers would require a complete rebalance of all units strengths and timings because a lot of USF balance depends on the first free officer squad giving a power spike. Faster M2HB could potentially cause balance problems.
USF actually need that since there units have the same properties when they had a tech tree disadvantage. You can simply remove the weakness of faction and expect thing to be fine.
Not saying it can't be done, but there are a lot of chain reactions and indirect consequences you need to consider. It would not be a simple change despite appearing as such on first glance.
Redsing a faction never is.
Posts: 3166 | Subs: 6
Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1
Sorry but you should really stop pretending the game still has a full fledged development team behind it. It's completely unrealistic to think it's possible to do full faction rebalances or redesigns at this point. There is no "simple" this and "simply" that. There are very few development resources available and these frankly ignorant/naive suggestions do not help the discussion about what actually can be done.
The Facts simply disprove you. Since Relic stopped the monopoly in patches OKW have been redesign, Soviets have been redesign and now USF have been redesigned. Up to an extend Ostheer and UKF have also been redesigned. That magnitude of changes has been at least equal if not greater than Relics times.
Now it there is not "development team" than patches should have no major changes and focus on plethora of thing that need fixing like veterancy bonuses and abilities, commander design and so on. That does not seem to be the case thou.
Posts: 712
Relic didn't removed them when they refreshed USF tech, can't see any new opportunity to do it now. You also have to take in account smoke nade that have been given to officers to mitigate riflesquad powerness, having smoke nade only on RE or units you need to purchase is quite a huge additional side nerf.
Supervision becomes also quite useless if you need to purchase the captain to use it.
Y don't see USF outfielding Ostheer when Gren cost 40mp less than rifles, usual Ostheer strat is going 1xHmG + 4xGren early game, vs 3xRM + 1 officer and then .50. Now, removing the free officer will upset even more the OKW's manpower advantage they get early game over USF.
Smoke isnt a big of a deal, you can always get a mortar or a pack howitzer to deal with mgs early game. Usf will always outfiel ostheer since it doesnt have to buil the tech tier structure and doesnt have to get mg or sniper. You can always get ostruppen to mitigate that and get osttruppen to rush flame ht but osttruppen suck late game vs usf and flame ht is kinda cheesy
Posts: 1044 | Subs: 1
The only team weapon you could argue is better than its Ost counterpart is the Pak howi.
MG42 is the best MG in the game and how much better it's AP rounds are compared to MG34 or 50. is a joke. Pak is a monster with TWP
The 57mm is better I think, it has a much wider arc, higher rof, and higher pen with the AP rounds. It’s also cheaper if I remember correctly. Mg42 is definitely the best mg, but the 50 cal is 2nd in that category.
Posts: 1220
Its not better just asymetrical because 57mm requires small amount of micro and muni. Pak is more nobrain at gun but of course cost more so im ok with that. cons and pros buddy
The 57mm is better I think, it has a much wider arc, higher rof, and higher pen with the AP rounds. It’s also cheaper if I remember correctly. Mg42 is definitely the best mg, but the 50 cal is 2nd in that category.
Posts: 1002 | Subs: 2
The Facts simply disprove you. Since Relic stopped the monopoly in patches OKW have been redesign, Soviets have been redesign and now USF have been redesigned. Up to an extend Ostheer and UKF have also been redesigned. That magnitude of changes has been at least equal if not greater than Relics times.
Relatively safe reworks that have had very little outside impact? That's what the USF redesign seemed like. I mean, the USF redesign came down to "split the tiers, switch the stuart and AA half track." That initial stuff took around a week (was it two?). Even then, changes as small as that ended up in a lot of work on the back end. A multi hour discussion on how we need to adjust tech prices now. Another multi hour discussion spanning a few days on whether or not we can remove officers from teching without taking away too much of USF's identity (yes, its something we considered). Another multi hour discussion on whether we can push officers to the .5 upgrades of each tier or not. Another multi hour discussion on whether or not having officers being purchased can work (to make up for this nerf, initial tiers would be manpower-less). A multi hour discussion on how LT having the BAR brought too much power and meant that LT would always be preferred over CPT because of it. Fine, we finally have the test build ready for release after 1-2 weeks...
Well now we just screwed over airborne. A multi hour discussion on CP and cost adjustments for airborne's weapon teams. Later, a multi hour discussion on recon's airdrop. Cool, we lowered recon's CPs now... and made the doctrine super overpowered. A multi hour discussion on how to fix recon.
This is a simplification, but you seem to think that these redesigns "just happen somehow." They don't. What started with "lets split the tiers and switch the AA HT and stuart" ended up necessitating 10+ (probably quite a bit more than that, tbh) multi hour discussions to accommodate those first two changes and avoid screwing up the game. Even then (evidenced by this very thread), some people still aren't happy with the result. Arguing design principles and how things "should be" is cool because it allows you to discuss things that sound cool, even if they're bad ideas in practice or are much more complex than they seem. You don't have to think about the consequences when you argue this way because you can just hand wave issues away or hide behind some more theory. When you look at things more practically or try to actually implement these changes, then you can't hand wave or argue away issues that changes cause.
Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1
Relatively safe reworks that have had very little outside impact?... because it allows you to discuss things that sound cool,...
I am not trying to sound cool and I really don't like to turn balance debates into personal issues.
I am simply providing my opinion on how to improve the game in forum that exist for that reason.
And I was simply responding Sander93 argument that moving officers too 1.5 tech is too much work, if someone starts to do a task one should probably have the time to finish it or one runs the risk to create as many problem as he solved.
My point thou still stands, the has been at least as much if not more overhaul from before and after with OKW, Soviet and now USF receiving a redesign and Commanders being revamped.
At this point, I once more have to point out that I fully support the people who help the creation of these patchs even if in do not always agree with changes.
Posts: 3260
- WC51 no longer can be decrewed.
- Mark Target and 155mm Artillery removed from WC51.
Standard Sherman dozer blade upgrade removed.
The WC51's proved itself as an excellent unit. The rationale behind giving incongruous command abilities in the first place was to make it worth building: it's easily worth building without them.
Removing the vehicle crew would force USF to repair it with their REs when it gets damaged, lowering its early game shock value.
As for the Dozer Blades, they're visually confusing (they make Shermans look like the 105mm Sherman Bulldozer) and are a buff the 75mm doesn't really need. The excellent new 76mm Sherman is enough in my opinion.
Posts: 1002 | Subs: 2
I am simply providing my opinion on how to improve the game in forum that exist for that reason.
Which isn't quite the issue. The issue is that you seem to think expressing the specific opinions you do is more helpful than it actually is. It sounds harsh, but the point is that expressing practical (by that I mean ideas that can actually be implemented) ideas is more helpful than expressing ideas that may or may not be "correct" or "for the best." Because if the ideas don't actually fit in the game or can't be reasonably brought into the game, then they're just that - ideas.
And I was simply responding Sander93 argument that moving officers too 1.5 tech is too much work, if someone starts to do a task one should probably have the time to finish it or one runs the risk to create as many problem as he solved.
And I wouldn't personally say my section above is applicable to this suggestion; I don't think it is too much work to implement. I would, however say that this would probably make things worse. Theoretically, making officers optional (purchased individually) would increase build diversity. After all, you can now choose to get 1 less core infantry squad. But that's not how it would work out in practice as far as I can imagine. USF currently gets their weapon team tech + officer for 200/35. Now that that doesn't include a squad, you probably need to make it cheaper, and therefore make weapon teams come earlier or allow USF to hold more manpower for their team weapons. At this point, instead of getting cav rifles or assault engineers or riflemen... I could just rush and spam 50 cals...why would I want to do anything else? OKW certainly doesn't have the counters to that, and forcing ostheer into a counter is forcing them into a loss anyway. Build diversity has now been lessened, and axis factions are no longer allowed to use infantry against USF from the start of the game...not an improvement imo.
Fine, then you just nerf the 50 cal. Well, with its instant set up, you either turn it into a maxim (lol) and gut its suppression (clarifying that the break point is whether or not it suppresses in one burst, which tends to be a binary line between really strong, or useless), or get rid of the instant set up...or turn it into a vickers/mg34/mg42 copy. So now USF has a lost a mechanic that makes them unique (officers free with teching), had their HMG gutted/turned into a copy of other faction HMGs, and finally, if you do all of this correctly, you don't destroy what build diversity there is with USF... and for what gain?
Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1
Which isn't quite the issue. The issue is that you seem to think expressing the specific opinions you do is more helpful than it actually is. It sounds harsh, but the point is that expressing practical (by that I mean ideas that can actually be implemented) ideas is more helpful than expressing ideas that may or may not be "correct" or "for the best." Because if the ideas don't actually fit in the game or can't be reasonably brought into the game, then they're just that - ideas.
Pls if you want to talk about what I do or do not do pls do not do it a balance forum. You can simply PM me. I can assure thou that I do not believe that my opinion somehow carries more weight than other people opinion. If I sound like it is because the level of personal comments seem to be high and I find myself to have to defend to personal comments. In this a comment that started like this :"Sorry but you should really stop pretending..."
And I wouldn't personally say my section above is applicable to this suggestion; I don't think it is too much work to implement. I would, however say that this would probably make things worse. Theoretically, making officers optional (purchased individually) would increase build diversity. After all, you can now choose to get 1 less core infantry squad. But that's not how it would work out in practice as far as I can imagine. USF currently gets their weapon team tech + officer for 200/35. Now that that doesn't include a squad, you probably need to make it cheaper, and therefore make weapon teams come earlier or allow USF to hold more manpower for their team weapons. At this point, instead of getting cav rifles or assault engineers or riflemen... I could just rush and spam 50 cals...why would I want to do anything else? OKW certainly doesn't have the counters to that, and forcing ostheer into a counter is forcing them into a loss anyway. Build diversity has now been lessened, and axis factions are no longer allowed to use infantry against USF from the start of the game...not an improvement imo.
Fine, then you just nerf the 50 cal. Well, with its instant set up, you either turn it into a maxim (lol) and gut its suppression (clarifying that the break point is whether or not it suppresses in one burst, which tends to be a binary line between really strong, or useless), or get rid of the instant set up...or turn it into a vickers/mg34/mg42 copy. So now USF has a lost a mechanic that makes them unique (officers free with teching), had their HMG gutted/turned into a copy of other faction HMGs, and finally, if you do all of this correctly, you don't destroy what build diversity there is with USF... and for what gain?
Actually my suggestion was that the officer comes with the second unlock and not optional.
The lose of unique mechanic is direct result of the decision to redesign and homogenize the faction in the first place. A similar thing happened with Soviet for instance when the decision to buff core units lead to necessity to lock KV-1, M4C and KV-8 vehicles behind tech.
Posts: 3260
A similar thing happened with Soviet for instance when the decision to buff core units lead to necessity to lock KV-1, M4C and KV-8 vehicles behind tech.
I'm fairly sure the rationale given for locking doctrinal medium armour behind tech is because otherwise you didn't have to tech. SOV Shock Rifle, SOV Lend Lease, USF Armor Company, OST Mobile Defence, they all just teched all their lower tiers for full infantry variety and then belched out call-in tanks with their huge fuel reserves from never teching.
You still see it at the moment with the IS-2/KV-2/Crocodile/Tiger/Pershing/Command Panther, but as heavies the call-in is obvious and you have time to prepare.
Actually my suggestion was that the officer comes with the second unlock and not optional.
Then, as Jae said, USF'll just build more .50 cals.
Livestreams
42 | |||||
32 | |||||
13 | |||||
3 | |||||
3 | |||||
222 | |||||
37 | |||||
20 | |||||
1 | |||||
1 |
Ladders Top 10
-
#Steam AliasWL%Streak
- 1.831222.789+37
- 2.34957.860+14
- 3.589215.733+4
- 4.1099614.642-1
- 5.280162.633+8
- 6.305114.728+1
- 7.916405.693-2
- 8.271108.715+22
- 9.721440.621+3
- 10.1041674.607-2
Replay highlight
- cblanco ★
- 보드카 중대
- VonManteuffel
- Heartless Jäger
Board Info
7 posts in the last week
39 posts in the last month
Welcome our newest member, cablingindfw
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM