Posts: 3166 | Subs: 6
Can't you distinguish the problem between lacking a unit type and lacking performance of a unit? Please start another thread if you feel the performance of Stug is worse when compare to ally TD.
Posts: 392
The USF does not lack a unit type. There is the M8 Scott for late game indirect fire. If you are unsatisfied with the performance if this unit, please start another thread.
Posts: 3260
It is nothing to do with JLI is doctrinal or not in this thread. Just start another thread if you think JLI should be non-doctrinal. It is always welcomed.
Posts: 392
You've made the case that OKW has 'everything' nondoctrinally and therefore USF should too.
The counterpoint has been made that OKW does not have everything nondoctrinally. No faction does.
- OST doesn't have a nondoctrinal 60 range tank destroyer.
- SOV doesn't have a nondoctrinal premium brawler tank.
- USF doesn't have nondoctrinal heavy artillery vehicles or snipers.
- OKW doesn't have nondoctrinal onfield reinforcement or snipers.
- UKF doesn't have nondoctrinal mobile indirect fire outright.
Posts: 3260
I use shit to reply shit
Posts: 392
Then 'shit' is what you will be judged on by everyone else.
USF doesn't need a nondoctrinal mobile howitzer. The tool is there doctrinally, but it has plenty of other tools to deal with team weapons. The Priest and Calliope are particularly good at it, but if they weren't why would you ever pick those doctrines?
Posts: 3260
Nah, but if they weren't why would you ever pick those doctrines so you first admit USF really needs mobile artillery that's why people pick those doctrine.
Posts: 392
Not at all.
Doctrinal tools have advantages or specialisms nondoctrinal tools don't.
SOV doesn't need the T-34/85, but it does a better job killing tanks than the T-34/76 does.
If the nondoctrinal tools were better than the doctrinal ones, commanders would be pointless.
Posts: 3260
But USF lack a non doctrinal mobile heavy artillery in stock which scott simply can not replace its role due to the different mechanism between them.
Posts: 392
If you can't use USF's other tools (strong offmaps, excellent HE, nondoctrinal medium indirect fire, nondoctrinal vehicular indirect fire, smoke mortars on Shermans) to deal with team weapons, then don't play USF.
Posts: 3260
I see, you have run out of arguments and decide to go peronal which is off topic in this case. Reported.
Posts: 392
It's hardly personal. If you feel you need rocket artillery, then don't play a faction without rocket artillery using a commander without rocket artillery.
It's not a difficult concept.
Posts: 3260
What I am playing is not related to this topic and it won't change the fact that USF has no non doctrinal mobile artillery which they actually need in team game.
Posts: 783
What I am playing is not related to this topic and it won't change the fact that USF has no non doctrinal mobile artillery which they actually need in team game.
Posts: 8154 | Subs: 2
Posts: 392
They don't need it. HelpingHans's pick in the 2v2 Anniversary Classic was Heavy Cavalry Company.
They can get it if they want it with doctrines, but there are plenty of other ways to knock out team weapons and emplacements.
Posts: 392
OP plays 3v3/4v4
Meta since 2013 has been tanks and heavy artillery spam.
USF doesn't have non doctrinal heavy artillery but it does have other strengths but OP wants heavy artillery like other factions.
OP should realise the difference between NEED and WANT.
Posts: 3260
Having other strengths means nothing to this topic. Factions can have multiple strengths. So please start explain why they don't need it and stick to this topic. Trying to get me or any single player involved is meaningless and is off topic.
Posts: 392
Not how it works. You're the one asking for a change, the burden of proof is on you.
What evidence do you have that USF's existing tools are insufficient?
Posts: 4474
Katitof-2018
 |
|
|
7 | ||
 |
|
|
227 | ||
 |
|
|
22 | ||
|
|
|
|
5 | ||
 |
|
|
2 | ||
|
|
|
|
1 |
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
