Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1
I think Make it suppress and AA more reliable, increase traverse speed and improved tracking will make it viable without make it have to shred everything.
Posts: 5279
I do some further test with the bofor 1.2, now i can move a Volk straight in and toss a flame nade then retreat with 3-4 model, i did it 3,4 time in a row until the bofor is destroyed in cheat mod with fow on.
I see why most axis player said bofor 1.2 is solid change.
Posts: 1220 | Subs: 1
This is intended. The bofors isn't as independent as volks are. Bofors is supposed to have an army around it to be worth its cost but volks are supposed to win most engagements frontally and especially against Supression platforms with the micro tax on the not owk player due to their raw independence. This is a well known factor in balancing
Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8
I know one suggestion in the background has been to just raise it to 40 damage, but probably allowing it to better control the zone versus infantry with more suppression would probably be better since 20mm flaks from the 251 and emplacement.
Not easy to determine, but maybe if we can allow UKF to at least get a minor refund on emplacements it'd help.
This is intended. The bofors isn't as independent as volks are. Bofors is supposed to have an army around it to be worth its cost but volks are supposed to win most engagements frontally and especially against Supression platforms with the micro tax on the not owk player due to their raw independence. This is a well known factor in balancing
Maybe it's 'cause the Axis players aren't a bunch of forum crybabies, and they keep their cool and fight the uphill battle, unlike some of their "allied" counterparts.
Posts: 3260
Also, no one in his right mind would even consider the 15 fuel side unlock, much less the actual emplacement cost.
Posts: 5279
That's the core of the problem with it.
It can't retreat, so it's destroyed if it loses an engagement. It's also too expensive to lose. Relic tried to solve this by making it tough enough that you don't lose it, and we've all seen how that ended.
At this point, I think a high investment, generalist, direct-fire emplacement inevitably results in SimCity.
I see two solutions to this problem.
The first is to make it a unit you can afford to lose: make it a cheap but easily destroyed emplacement like an OKW Flak. Enemy blows it up? Just build more.
The second is to make it a specialist: no anti-infantry capability beyond Suppressing Barrage, but 60 range, really good against light vehicles and a threat to mediums that get too close. That'd be a real alternative to the AEC.
Posts: 3260
I feel like that would be really strange. All other flak is AI focused so having one that just isn't at all would be awkward I think
Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8
The oldest flak gun in the game (the 222 upgrade for the Ostheer 221) was originally trash against infantry.
Maybe it's 'cause the Axis players aren't a bunch of forum crybabies, and they keep their cool and fight the uphill battle, unlike some of their "allied" counterparts.
Posts: 556
Posts: 563
Posts: 5279
My issue with bofros was alway damage to light vehicles. If 222 ever even ened up close to it and you werent microing it, it was 100% dead. Also smoking it and trying to rush it does not always work as bofros can still target ground.
Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8
My issue with bofros was alway damage to light vehicles. If 222 ever even ened up close to it and you werent microing it, it was 100% dead. Also smoking it and trying to rush it does not always work as bofros can still target ground.
Maybe it's 'cause the Axis players aren't a bunch of forum crybabies, and they keep their cool and fight the uphill battle, unlike some of their "allied" counterparts.
Posts: 563
Go check what OKW cheap flak turrets do to lights up to 30 fuel.
Return here with surprised picachu face.
A unit that costs 3x as much fuel is well justified to perform 3x as good.
Another droplet of wisdom I hope you'll soak is:
"you weren't microing it" argument leads to conscripts killing tigers and isn't any argument.
"you weren't microing it" leads to situations like ullumulu has in his games, where 50 range unit loses to immobile 40 range unit.
Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8
There is diffirence in vehicle dying in one burst that lasts in seconds while your in your given example there is considerable time sunk to perform it. I dont belive there is necessarily other things wrong with unit. And changes that were implemented in this patch are fine for me.
Maybe it's 'cause the Axis players aren't a bunch of forum crybabies, and they keep their cool and fight the uphill battle, unlike some of their "allied" counterparts.
Posts: 563
There is also considerable cost difference, which you ignored despite me specifically underlining it.
Luchs and T70 also have performance difference favoring T70, but T70 is also considerably more expensive.
Same thing with bofors, especially preview bofors, which is completely impotent now.
Don't blindly a-move your lights into fog of war.
Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8
Yeah cost diffirence i missed but at the same time i dont think cost is issue. I only disliked one part of the unit. It useless to banter about itanymore as the patch version is already implemented. I have nothing more about it.
Maybe it's 'cause the Axis players aren't a bunch of forum crybabies, and they keep their cool and fight the uphill battle, unlike some of their "allied" counterparts.
Posts: 5279
There is also considerable cost difference, which you ignored despite me specifically underlining it.
Luchs and T70 also have performance difference favoring T70, but T70 is also considerably more expensive.
Same thing with bofors, especially preview bofors, which is completely impotent now.
Don't blindly a-move your lights into fog of war.
Posts: 2066
Posts: 3166 | Subs: 6
Churchill needs to be limited to 2 on the field or nerfed. It is too good as recently shown in 1v1 USA patch tourney.
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
