1v1 is their weakest showing due to the nature of infantry play in it, but whatcha gonna do.
From the recent tournaments I've observed, top players just won't pick them. Clearly they're perfectly fine.
Posts: 682
1v1 is their weakest showing due to the nature of infantry play in it, but whatcha gonna do.
Posts: 1527
Permanently Banned
From the recent tournaments I've observed, top players just won't pick them. Clearly they're perfectly fine.
Posts: 857 | Subs: 2
I'd agree this is the best way to help out Ostheer, because it won't impact team games as much as, say, buffing Grenadiers. Ostheer in team games is still very strong because using their strongest units (HMG 42, Pak 40, mortars, Panther, Brummbar, etc) is much easier there.
What would also help indirectly is indeed some slight tuning of UKF and USF now that their new tech / snares have settled down, and remove some of the excessive things that they had to compensate for these weaknesses (such as the accuracy bonus vs lights for the 6 Pounder).
Posts: 2243
Posts: 591 | Subs: 1
Cardboard box also thinks lmg grens > double bar riflemen at midrange. Of course he thinks Ost is fine.
Posts: 611
Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1
I told you that they do more damage then, I'll tell you the exact same now, your bizzare personal fixation on being wrong is admirable but you can quit any time. Do I need to dig up the posts where you insisted they didn't and you were demonstrably incorrect?
Back to the point, yes. You can't just buff Ost to be better in 1v1 via gren boosts or the like without making a mess of team games, 2v2 and up. Their vehicle play and team weapons already make them incredibly viable, adding mainline infantry strength on top of that will mark a return to the misery days when team games were a 90% axis searching at any given time.
Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8
Compare USF and Ostheer you will find that their support weapons are about equal and their infatry is better. So is their light vehicles.
Should they grenadier get a big buff? probably not but there is large number units that need to nerfed.
Posts: 2458 | Subs: 1
Posts: 857 | Subs: 2
This idea that giving some slight buffs to some UP Ostheer units is going to fix anything is just flat out wrong.
IMO the first step to improving balance would be to roll back some doctrinal stuff that USF got in the last patch. Especially 0 CP no cool down Pathfinders, WC51, cheap weapon drops in airborne doctrine and Cavalary Riflemen.
Posts: 2458 | Subs: 1
Posts: 808
What people overlook is that Ost is still decent vs Soviets. Buffing Ost and keeping USF and UKF the same will just make Soviets UP.
If you look at USF you just have to wonder why they deserve a MG as good as a 50 cal. You have to wonder why they get cheap weapon drops + additional squad with teching. Why does Scott need to have 400 HP? Why does Jackson be the clearly best TD in the entire game? Why does Pak Howi have as much firepower as it does right now when all the other mortars got nerfed and Leig remains weak because of unreachable vet requirements.
Posts: 857 | Subs: 2
What people overlook is that Ost is still decent vs Soviets. Buffing Ost and keeping USF and UKF the same will just make Soviets UP.
Posts: 591 | Subs: 1
Posts: 3166 | Subs: 6
And if they do nerfs and buffs they need to do it gradually bit at a time, not triple/buffs or triple nerfs like they did to the stug
StuG G
The Stug’s high rate of fire is disproportionate to its cost, particularly when produced in numbers.
• Reload from 3.5/4.5 to 4.5/5.5
Asymnetrical balance and all that. At least now they have snares at ALL but the AEC availability was always to offset the severe lack of vehicle snares in the brit roster. They can't even start planting mines until they tech up.
Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8
I don't think the AEC timing is a problem, but it was one of the units designed to be excessively good to compensate for the complete lack of snares. Now that RE have snares, its Tread Shot ability should be moved to vet 1 and maybe the ability's penetration should be brought down from 1000 to normal pen values (like Puma's Aimed Shot ability). Just like the 6 Pounder should now lose its 1.5 accuracy modifier vs Light Vehicles.
Posts: 591 | Subs: 1
I don't think the AEC timing is a problem, but it was one of the units designed to be excessively good to compensate for the complete lack of snares. Now that RE have snares, its Tread Shot ability should be moved to vet 1 and maybe the ability's penetration should be brought down from 1000 to normal pen values (like Puma's Aimed Shot ability). Just like the 6 Pounder should now lose its 1.5 accuracy modifier vs Light Vehicles.
Posts: 1096
Secondly, Ost armour has no where near the impact on the game when compared to some allied tanks.
The issue is not so much that Ost armour does not do the damage that some allied tanks do, but more the fact that Ost armour cannot maintain as much field presence due to how often allied At penetrates. I am aware that axis armour does improve with vet but often Ost is already on the ropes and doesn't have enough vps available to built vet. The other thing is allied armour isn't noticably inferior to axis armour especially when consideration is given to how often axis tanks shots fail to penetrate. I have lost count of how many times I have seen a panther or stug or P4 bounce or miss shots on pershing or Is2 ( many at point blank range from P4 ).
Posts: 611
Are you referring to 1v1? Because this is not indicative of the 3v3/4v4 experience.
Also you seem baffled that a Call-in heavy tank such as the IS2 (and to a lesser extent the Pershing) can bounce shots from stock units...
Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8
Baffled that a heavy tank bounces shots. No.
Baffled that such a high percentage bounce from paks, stugs and panther compared to how often tigers and Panthers get penetrated by allied at, absolutely.
Axis armour should not be Op but given that allied infantry is stronger than Ost then it is not unreasonable that axis tanks should have better penetration amd accuracy than what is currently in ppace.
48 | |||||
9 | |||||
2 | |||||
1 |