Since this has been adjusted I'm reserving a snap judgement since volks will now be fighting "full HP" squads if their cover is mitigated and micro is performed.
+1
Problem of stgs is not performance, is more about a strategical issue. Is a no brain upgrade, as soon as you have munis you do it. Back in the day, several people -including me- suggested to give x2 type of upgrades (attach to tech) to volks (one close range other long range as some suggested in this post) to give volk and okw a tactical approach. As long as is not like ever happenning, problems of volks will remain the same. They just do OKISH in all ranges and stage of the game with 0 tactical decision, which makes OKW playstyle quite boring. As Mr.Smith said the other option is buffing support units and putting them in t0 but this make OKW second Ostheer. So between this two option we are stuck right in the middle with a volks that can deal with no specific purpose everything (infantry close, mid, long and a bit of AT).
|
|
Conscripts for the first time in a long time are useful. Don't change their stats. I'd rather increase their cost/popcap/upkeep to prevent spamming if it ever comes necessary, |
|
I like the changes on feuesturm. My concerns:
1. Opel Blitz truck may encourage blobing.
2. mp40 overlaping with stg44 upgrade. However being stg44 a general upgrade to volks in all range is not that bad.
3. I need more testing for hetzer, but dunno if its worth the price. With the amount antigarrison abilities you got with the commander and the need of tech I would always pick p4 instead of hetzer.
4. FPS drop with so much fire Kappa. |
|
I like the changes in the commander but I think a few changes are needed.
1. M3 halftrack should spawn with cavalry rifles. It fits better with the scheme and gives new infantry units to usf to encourage combined arms.
2. I would remove the mortar halftrack is too much of callins and would make infantry doctrine less often picked. Replace for something else.
3. 76 mm sherman or bulldozer upgrade seem good idea. Haven't tested enough to know which change is better yet.
4. WC51 too cheap for how it performs. OKW struggling to counter it.
|
|
Best revamp imo.
Haven't tested enough to give feedback about balance, but the idea and changes look great.
Good job!
EDIT:With this revamp Airborne needs a tweak or it will be totally removed for players loadout. Right now Recon is like an improved version of airborne. |
|
As I said another post:
Overall
Luftwaffe doctrine revamp is very disappointing. Nothing new, nothing interesting, no motivation to pick the doctrine in any situation. Nerf to falls is a bad idea, the rework of other abilities is just MEH. I can't think in any situation where feuesturm (urban city scenario) and fortifications (defensive play) are not better options than luftwaffe.
This commander needs an entire rework.
Falls
I like them spawning as a normal airborne squad, fully and with a cost decrease. It's too expensive.
Valiant assault
Needs to be reworked complete or either be removed and replaced with something else (strafe?).
Airborne Assault
Redundant having falls. I would remove and replace it for something different. Perhaps paradrop some kind of resources?(like luft ost commander to compensate lack of cache?) Or paradrop weapon?
Flak emplacements
We have fortification commander for that. One doctrine with emplacements are enough and does not fit at all. I would remove it and replace it for something new.
|
|
Kinda like all commander revamps. Specially USF ones. They may need a bit of tweaks, but overall they diversify USF play. Good job there!
However OKW commander revamps look a bit poor. Feuesturm is okish,but nothing new at all besides the opel truck, which may encourage blobs btw.
Luftwaffe doctrine revamp is very disappointing. Nothing new, nothing interesting, no motivation to pick the doctrine in any situation. Nerf to falls is a bad idea, the rework of other abilities is just MEH. I can't think in any situation where feuesturm (urban city scenario) and fortifications (defensive play) are not better options than luftwaffe. This revamp won't make the commander picked more often I'm afraid. A thread in coh2.org should be opened in order to adress this failure. |
I understand your point, that you would rather have something that is thematic and synergizes extremely well with the ability. However, I would argue that such a combination would make Conscripts overpowered.
DPS conscript in long range is ver low. Plus I said in my suggestion orah was replaced by hit the dirt. 1-dp28 DOES NOT give that much power to conscripts, you can try it yourself.
Not being able to be supressed is a matter of how you work hit the dirt. If hit the dirt make cons immune to supression then they should have less accuracy. If hit the dirt gives more accuracy then they can get supressed either. You have mixed all the stuff here. Cons spam again is not a problem of weapon upgrades it's a problem of giving specific roles to infantry through upgrades. That's why dp28+hit the dirt fits more than ppshs. Ppsh's its a downgrade to conscripts except in close range, which overall still is a downgrade. Mixing hit the dirt with ppshs its not only about thematic issue its about it solves nothing. Ppsh's will still be a never chosen upgrade. |
Bad idea. We would see DP-28 Cons blobs which are immune to suppression mowing down everything they come across, cancelling Hit the Dirt and moving after every 10 seconds. Plus, being 6-man squads they are much more resistant to indirect fire than Grens.
As I see it, Hit the Dirt is supposed to be used when you have multiple Cons squads attacking a lone MG. You move one in, Hit the Dirt, move the other. Once he shifts fire to the other moving squad you Hit the Dirt on that one and move the other.
This would happen anyway with ppshs. Cons spam is not an issue of weapon upgrades its about upkeep/mp drain. Only difference is that ppsh should be for assault and dp28 for defense, so hit the dirt fits on static defensive weapon profiles. |
B4 was our first choice.
However, the commander needs something reliable to crutch onto, since every other ability is situational.
There is no way to make B4 work reliably, without either making it look weird (e.g., B4 shells dealing same AoE as ML-20), or letting it perform like a complete RNG cannon, which would ruin the doctrine.
There was also always the danger of overbuffing B-4 and forcing players to fight vs waves upon waves of Counterattack/Tank-Hunter tryhards.
Yeah, I understand what you mean. As you said the commander needs something. ML20 does not fit at all in the theme. I still think B4 reworked properly (specific AT role and less RNG) is the best solution. However if it's not possible maybe a Heavy call in? Something like kv2? ISU with AT rounds only? Command su85 like panther command? Just giving ideas.
|
Relic Entertainment
