|
Of course OKW is going to have trouble against indirect fire, they always have done, be it from muni based strikes or heavy mp on map investments. That's a fact that we have to live with when we are playing with a faction that can potentially construct their assets in the middle of the playing field.
In some respect seeing an ml-20 can be an advantage to the OKW player. Your opponent has just locked 600 mp into a static target. Yes it can fire at your medic/repair/Schwerer Pzer HQ but you also have the chance to seriously damage his pool of resources.
If you have no idea where the gun is (isn't hard just look at the mini-map whilst it is firing) then grab an IR track, cheap as chips , brilliant scouting unit. Use the HT to determine a weak point in the possible defensive line around the artillery piece and choose the best method on taking it out.
my two cents. |
|
.... with the proposed idea its role does stay, hence I said " whilst leaving a light burn effect after". In other words it the molotov is still an area of denial weapon whilst actually being more effective as a anti-personnel device. |
|
I don't understand why the molotov cannot be the following : 20 Mun, a short range grenade that can kill up to a few models on impact (like a trip wire flare) whilst leaving a light burn effect after.
It costs less than a rifle grenade / potato masher/ pineapple because of the shorter range whilst still being able to at least deal some reliable damage. Any ideas? |
You have have at max 3 of those at the same time for Ostheer, with most meta commanders only having 2. For Soviets the majority of meta doctrines use Shock Troops or use the 120mm mortar.
And what about it? As the Ostheer, you still have the capability of utilising lesser-known/played commanders. Infact, if you are worried about allied heavy mg play then go for it. |
|
The Su-85, Su-76, ISU 152,JgdPz4,JgdTiger,Elephant and Stug variants all have inherent mobility penalties derived from the fact that they are all case-mates. We all know that they pivot on the spot as apposed to having a freely moving turret to track and engage units, this is widely accepted. However, using any of the said vehicles in snow, deep-snow and mud is an outright painful experience.
The substrates mention appear to reduce the max speed and/or acceleration (don't quote me on this, knowledgeable peeps can fill me in on this?) which only exacerbates the already slow acceleration of the case-mates, and thus the tank is likely to perform poorly in combat.
The map on which a battle takes place can therefore ultimately defer disadvantages to players which RELY on case-mates to do the heavy lifting (su-85, the only soviet non-doctrinal AT mobile platform)
I propose that the debuff inherited from terrain should be removed from case-mates globally, so their performance can be regulated |
|
My previous thread was in the gameplay section, but I feel the balance section is more appropriate.
This 'Frangible incendiary device' in my opinion was never implemented properly as it literally is the quintessential representation of RNG in company of heroes.The recent patch's goals were to reduce squad wiping and to enable AOE weapons to deal more consistent damage across its splash radius.The evidence supporting this very statement being the reduction and increase in the near and medium damage radius of the 120mm and the reduction in overall damage of the HMC.
I propose that we do away with the RNG roll the ol' dice bottles and introduce a more consistent burn over time damage model akin to the white phosphorus shells (OBVIOUSLY omitting its unique traits like blocking LoS and slowing the receiving units down).
By doing this, we alleviate the all to apparent frustration when your perfectly timed 'surprise' nade fails to crit ANY of the HMG soldiers as they whisk their weapon away and skip merrily out of sight. Conversely it would bring an end to those truly rare occasions where the GOD himself smiles upon you as you immolate a squad within a blink of the eye.
Parameters for the unlock and cost of the grenade may have to be changed depending on it's effectiveness but at least it will be in line with the more conventional, reliable more satisfactory grenades that are up for offer. The best thing is, this proposed change will not alter the 'designated role' of the grenade as it will still deny cover for the enemy.
Discuss.
|
|
This 'Frangible incendiary device' in my opinion was never implemented properly as it literally is the quintessential representation of RNG in company of heroes.The recent patch's goals were to reduce squad wiping and to enable AOE weapons to deal more consistent damage across its splash radius.The evidence supporting this very statement being the reduction and increase in the near and medium damage radius of the 120mm and the reduction in overall damage of the HMC.
I propose that we do away with the RNG roll the ol' dice bottles and introduce a more consistent burn over time damage model akin to the white phosphorus shells (OBVIOUSLY omitting its unique traits like blocking LoS and slowing the receiving units down).
By doing this, we alleviate the all to apparent frustration when your perfectly timed 'surprise' nade fails to crit ANY of the HMG soldiers as they whisk their weapon away and skip merrily out of sight. Conversely it would bring an end to those truly rare occasions where the GOD himself smiles upon you as you immolate a squad within a blink of the eye.
Parameters for the unlock and cost of the grenade may have to be changed depending on it's effectiveness but at least it will be in line with the more conventional, reliable more satisfactory grenades that are up for offer. The best thing is, this proposed change will not alter the 'designated role' of the grenade as it will still deny cover for the enemy.
Discuss.
|
|
by increasing the cost to say 60, you still have squads that are just as capable but now you will find less munitions for your PTAB runs, light AT mines, salvage kits and grenade volleys. In other words the core of the doctrine will be negatively effected without solving the issue.
Instead like others have suggested, I propose that the conscripts' At rifles should prioritise the crew members as apposed to the weapon and have a reduction in close/mid accuracy to say 0.5, 0.3 ? |
|
just to let people know, conscripts do not receive 3 PTRS rifles when you buy the package, they receive 2 |
|
I have always been a fan of the tank hunter doctrine even before the changes to the PTRS (those light AT mines !!!) Now however the doctrine can now stand on its own two feet which is a desirable concept, but it's not when a literal horde of the once-obsolete anti-material rifles can negate support weapons. Increasing the cost of the AT package on conscripts in my opinion would be counter- intuitive towards the aims and strengths of the doctrine it sits in. By increasing the cost to say 60, you still have squads that are just as capable but now you will find less munitions for your PTAB runs, light AT mines, salvage kits and grenade volleys. In other words the core of the doctrine will be negatively effected without solving the issue.
Instead like others have suggested, I propose that the conscripts' At rifles should prioritise the crew members as apposed to the weapon and have a reduction in close/mid accuracy to say 0.5, 0.3 ?
I would like to point out that I feel the AT rifles on the guards are fine, they have a long aim time and they usually prefer to play dance dance 2 as apposed to actually firing their weapons.
I do hope that Relic do not decided to revert the change completely as it breathes new life into the psuedo-extinct guard featuring doctrines
|
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
