|
ok just read the 7.0 changes, with the nerf for the allied light transport vehicles I really think skiping the T1 building and tec rushing Pgrens gets more and more viable. |
I dunno, the whole point of moving pgrens to T0 is to make them more accesible, so they get used more often. They already cost a lot of MP, I don't think it's necessary to move 100mp from T2 to BP1, this would only serve to make the one pgren squad most players will probably consider to get less appealing(going for 2 or more squads is too much of an investment in most situations).
Also, most players get T2 for the light vehicles, and the PAK40 is typically preferred over pgren shrecks, I doubt saving 200MP and 20FU would make players consider skipping T2 and relying on pgrens instead of getting the PAK40. It could help players that already do that, but then they are already doing it fairly succesfully(unless they like to lose), so they have some other strategy to compensate for the lack of T2.
If most people dont skip the T2 building, ok, no change needed, but if they do I think my suggestion is resonable.
Pgren shrecks aren't really better than a pak for AT, they have their pros and cons over it, but aren't directly better, typically harder to use and keep on the field, and cost additional 100 munies, which could be spent on mines/upgrades for grens.
I never said they are better than pak for AT, I said it depends on the situation which one is better. Because of that I called them "fine".
Thanks for your reply. |
|
Shrecks are fine in my opinion, in the right situations they can be devastating. But they also have their weak points.
If I feel defensive I use Pak40s as AT. (needs fausts or mines for optimal performance)
If I feel offensive I use Shrecks as AT. (Needs other agressive units (Basic PGrens, G42 Grens and/or Pz4 for support).
Additionaly I think a change in tec and building cost should be made with the new patch. Increase the cost for the first Tec from 100MP to 200MP, because now it gives you Pgrens without the building and reduces the risk of a T1-T3 rush (You can use the shrecks to survive until your mediums hit the field). To balance things out reduce the cost of the T2 building from 200 MP to 100 MP, because it lost the Pgrens and I fear many will skip it if it costs 200MP.
Just my opinion.
|
|
thx for the great work.
But I have a feeling that Guards motor for Soviets and Elite Riflemen for USAF will be the go to doctrines for the Allies in 1vs1. |
|
I like the ISU and JT changes.
About the light tank oneshoots. I think a buff to 400 HP for all light tanks would be fair (Pz2 Luchs has 400 already). |
|
If I’m not mistaken the MP upkeep of USF troops in COH1 was very high until you got the upgrades in the supply building. That means the WM had could afford to pay more for its troops because they paid less upkeep. |
|
The Penal Flamethrower has a lower explosion chance if I remember correctly. Maybe just change the Riflemen and Assault engi Flamer to have the same chance like the Penal Flamer. |
|
The building model is bugged, dmg to the door (Truck, grenade) instantly destroys the whole building. |
the captain is accommodated by two rear archelon, aside from the bazooka wielding riflemen, and that is way too much AI for the captain.
The RE of the Cpt. use the Riflemen Garand, that means they are only RE by appearance.
http://www.coh2-stats.com/small_arms/m1_garand_rifle_rifleman_mp |
|
The only thing that bothers me is the difference between the fuel and ammo cache. They douple the income that means 3 fuel or 5 mun.
But all ressouce trade or call in abilitys trade 3 mun for 1 fuel. The OKW Truck trades 4 mun for 1 fuel or 1 fuel for 2 mun, that means it also is based around a 3:1 trade.
Because of that the mun cache needs more than twice the time to give the player a payback for it`s price than the fuel cache. And if you have fuel to mun trade abilitys, fuel caches are always better than mun caches. |
Germany
0
Hagen67483
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
