OKW core change proposal

Jump back to quoted post23 May 2019, 13:41 PMWiderstreit

- They will still have a snare, the AT-rifle-grenade. Less damage, but more range.

- The hole game is full of bad designed units, which could be solved by moving them to other fractions.
e.g. in my opinion:

- Luchs has to be in Ostheer
- HMG42 has to be in OKW
- leIG18 has to be in Ostheer
- 222 has to be in OKW
- etc.

- leIG18 is a shame of an arty. The AT-roule would be pefect. 50 range, light arty cover.
-> and yes, line-up has to be changed more.


But first, before we touch anything we have to destroy the MG-meter of all fractions. It is simply cancer.

Jump back to quoted post23 May 2019, 14:19 PMblvckdream

Lets maybe start at not randomly switching OST and OKW units around? Especially not units like the MG42 which is supposed to be the unit Ost is played around for the first stages of the game. You can´t seriously suggest terrible ideas like that and expect no one to call you out on it.

Jump back to quoted post23 May 2019, 14:26 PMKatitof

That's a great idea!
By doing that, you irreversibly obliterate balance of not only one, but TWO axis factions, creating massive incoherent mess because reasons!

Jump back to quoted post23 May 2019, 13:56 PMWiderstreit

By put down range for Firefly, Jackson to 55 range they will still outrange Tiger and Kingtiger by 10 range and will be in critical range for Paks like ALL german tanks are

Jump back to quoted post23 May 2019, 13:06 PMSander93

I'd also be against units that efficiently serve two distinct roles at the same time. I never liked how with the ZiS going for heavy anti-tank also gives good AI (or anti support weapons) and by now it's clear that giving the M-42 a dual role was a mistake as well. The game is about strategic unit choices with limited resources and dual purpose units are bad for balance.

Jump back to quoted post23 May 2019, 18:47 PMShadowpigy

Panzers can easliy flank and yolo alies tank destroyers because low armor try that with sherman versus panther
Never undrestand argument how poor panzer is because someone make tank destroyer lol
And now imagine tank destroyer with 70 range and with glorius armor

Jump back to quoted post23 May 2019, 19:34 PMWiderstreit

Yep… the great misstake of Jagdtiger...

Jump back to quoted post23 May 2019, 20:51 PMWingZero

Oh God another OKW changes thread.

Jump back to quoted post23 May 2019, 19:59 PMthedarkarmadillo

*does literally ANYTHING at all to support the JT*
*JT continues to invalidate all enemy armour*

Jump back to quoted post23 May 2019, 23:12 PMKiwiBirb

I agree, but;

Why do you always complain when people throw out ideas, and yet never offer your own?
Most of us (at least I don’t) think our ideas are perfect, or even good. But maybe one of my ideas can be improved upon by more experienced players so that it’s actually good.

Also, your feed back is always very true, so I’m not complaining about that

Jump back to quoted post23 May 2019, 13:06 PMSander93

I think the Brits adequately showed what happens when you'd remove snares from a faction. Replacing the Rakettenwerfer isn't an option either, as it would either leave OKW without an ATG (if you'd keep the AT/AI ISG in Battlegroup) in the most viable meta (Mechanized) or it would make Battlegroup even less attractive (if you'd move the ISG to the HQ).

I'd also be against units that efficiently serve two distinct roles at the same time. I never liked how with the ZiS going for heavy anti-tank also gives good AI (or anti support weapons) and by now it's clear that giving the M-42 a dual role was a mistake as well. The game is about strategic unit choices with limited resources and dual purpose units are bad for balance.


OKW does need some redesigns, but mostly to spread out the faction's power level more evenly across all stages of the match (tone down opening power, earlier Obers, etc.) and to get rid of some cheesy mechanics of certain units (Raketten stealth creep, Uhu, etc.) so the faction becomes more enjoyable both to play with as well as against.