That was when Satchels had 10 AOE, since then Relic has ninja nerfed it to 6 AOE, since penals cost less I really wish Relic understood the way AoE changes work. The AoE radius change from 10 to 6 actually reduces the area of effect by 64%, so to about ONE THIRD of what it used to be.
I didn't see Penals cost reduced to 1/3 of their old cost.  |
snip Well I mean, I didn't claim it happens 100% of the time.
And of course I hope we all agree the satchel should do considerably more damage than any grenade, especially against garrisons.
|
|
You mean you guys don't rush frontlines with Panzerwurfers?
Relic should add Panzerwurfer MG bulletins to increase carnage.
Panzerwurfer. |
|
I especially like how satcheling a building with an MG42 in it manages to kill a single model and tickles the others. |
Maybe let's not have people fight over who get's to build caches where and blow each others up? You know, I keep seeing this argument pop up but I think this is literally a non-issue and it would not happen literally ever. It's like saying people will fight over best MG / medic truck spots and democharge their teammates' MGs / medic trucks. People are just not that dumb. And trust me, I've had my fair share of griefer teammates over the years. They gun grief when their cookie cutter insane strat fails, and they gun do it no matter what.
That's what team chat and communications are for. I thought 4v4s were supposed to give off a semblance of teamwork, not four separate 1v1s, and the side with the better teamwork deserved to win? If you are playing with someone who is griefing because of not being able to build a cache, you are playing with a baby that would lose you the game anyway.
If your only counterargument to a move that would greatly improve the game (in my opinion) is that there would be griefers who would be mad at that change and would potentially do something stupid in 1 game out of 100. Well, garden them, pissing them off means the game is moving in the right direction. |
|
Hooray!
As an avid 4v4 player I always scoff when someone looks down on 4v4s. I can imagine these guys giving advice to DotA and LoL developers : "nah man, team games are not popular, 1v1 is where it's at".
Anyway it is my opinion that the game just needs a few changes and 4v4 would be just as easily balanced as 1v1s are (that is to say, not at all easy, but at least it won't be a different planet compared to 1v1s)
- make caches only give bonus to the player who built them. I know this is controversial but it wouldn't change 1v1 mechanics in the slightest and would do much to make teamgames not devolve into armour spam at minute 18. This would shaft OKW somewhat but it might actually open them up for accross the board buffs.
- "onmap artillery pieces being instantly countered by certain offmaps" equation needs fixing. If a single player happens to have Stuka bombing run ability, Allies cannot build stationary howitzers, period. Stuka seems the biggest offender here but for fairness sake Allied offmaps (Time on Target, IL2 bomb run) vs howitzers should also get looked at.
- CAS is a huge problem in 4v4s, and almost single-handedly made me quit large team games on several occasions. It's more difficult to predict the strikes (in smaller games you are pretty much aware what the enemy sees but in 4v4 line of sight is chaotic and there are like 123890 airplanes circling the sky at any given moment), and the commander has incredible utility accross the entire battlefield, especially in the corners. This target rich environment and the insane fuel float combine to make what is otherwise an effective, but not imba, commander in 1v1s a nightmare to deal with in large games.
Fix the above and I guarantee you 4v4 will be almost as balanced as 1v1s. |
|
USF vs Ostheer on Langerskaya.
An excellent 1v1 match with lots of back and forth. Reasonably high-level play, no noob mistakes.
Featuring Rear Echelons, twin vet3 MG42s, and hordes upon hordes of medium armour with lots of all-or-nothing engagements. Diverse units on the fields with nonmeta commanders (Mechanized company vs Mechanized (not assault) Doctrine) and did I mention hordes of medium armour on both sides? Stugs, Shermans, Panzers, Jacksons, you name'em, we got'em.
GG, Wapoon. |
|
You outplayed nobody. I watched the replay and all I saw were blind rushes with Sturmpioneer blobs across red / neutral cover at Riflesquads sitting stationary in green cover and then crying that you didn't win the game.
Maybe USF vs OKW early game does need looking at, but you could never tell after this replay. So you wiped a few squads. Good. Too bad for you that Relic didn't tie the VP counter to squadwipes. You are also apparently flabbergasted that after manpower losses your opponent was able to field an AA half-track , after he held fuel uncontested (and even holding two) at the 8 minute mark. As if manpower losses somehow prevent people from fielding light vehicles.
The reasons you lost this game are irrelevant. You will keep losing, because you are quick to blame everyone and their mother for losing a game, instead of checking if maybe your strategy, build order and micro were anything but flawless when in fact they were atrocious. |
Regarding this commandos vs pzgrens thing - they are completely different squads. In a fair fight in a vacuum, Panzergrenadiers will win since the new patch, but abilities on Commandos are what makes them much better troops overall - ambush, demo charge, better grenade.
The only problem here, dude, is that you accuse people who are thinking that Pzgrens are not what they should be, by saying that they want some terminator squads that require almost zero micro and that can run across the map killing ever infantry they meet. What I pointed out is that Allied already have such infantry units so your accusation is more than awkward and inappropriate. Well I mean, I didn't mention anyone by name, if you recognized yourself in my rant, that's on you  . But in all seriousness, it was not meant to be insulting. When I said terminator squads that require almost zero micro I forgot to add "like allies already have", but I was thinking it. So if it makes you feel any better you can consider my post more like this: "axis players aren't pansies so they don't need such noskill infantry, they do just fine with tactical play". And believe me I do not say that out of love for allies or because I like shock troops. I just think this game needs less assault infantry, not more. |
You mean.... like commandos, thompson paras, shock trops etc...(Such tactics. Many micro)? No, we don't need those. Yes, that was absolutely, 100%, precisely, unironically, what I meant. "I guess you want to have infantry that takes zero thinking to use, like the other factions have". That the point of that sentence. You interpreteded it in a correct manner. Points for reading comprehension, I guess?
If you are unhappy with Panzergrenadiers that's okay, but they are good. They are not commandos, but then, they are cheaper and non-doctrinal.
Shock troops, rangers etc. are a bludgeon. Swing and hope you hit something. Panzergrenadiers are a scimitar. They need to be wielded with finesse. It's not micro tax, it's using cover, which you should be doing. They are defensive infantry, they bleed if used as assault troops without support. Yes, they require more thought and tactics to use properly than Shocktroops do. Yes, this means Allied players have more infantry versatility at their disposal. Yes, I understand you think that is unfair towards Ostheer.
Did you seriously ever have a situation "damn I could really use right now some sort of shocktrooper equivalent to just wreck that .50cal wall the US player used to lock down half the map."  |
Serbia
Wapoon
drChengele
drChengele
crexus100
drChengele
Relic Entertainment
