So 3 upgrades to Tier 2? Alright then, I just hope the mobile mortar is worth it, but that could lead to some very awarding team games then, one goes for Bofors, while the other goes for mortar pits.
How is that more rewarding now when both brits can get both a bofors and a mortar pit? |
Thanks for explaining your reasoning. That helps understanding why some people like it. What do you think about those specific, questionable units though, namely the Cromwell and M10?
Both are obviously overperforming. If you reduce the rotation rate to match sherman standards it solves the problem entirely. In my opinion the size nerf for the cromwell was a bit much, I think it should be at size 21 but I would up the price a little. |
|
So that was a long rambly post but I will talk about USF weapon racks now, and it sort of relates to what you were saying.
I'm not a fan of the way weapon racks are implemented in the game, and I think they result in the opposite of what they were trying to achieve.
The weapon racks are there to allow the basic riflemen to perform multiple roles, and let you equip them in different ways to change up the monotony of having only one real infantry squad. What ends up happening is people just upgrade all their riflemen squads the same way in a game, there is no diversity at all. You unlock bars, you put bars on all the riflesquads. All the rifles now become barred rifles, still all identical. Maybe you put some bazookas on one of your squads, or go for lmgs instead of bars, the outcome is still that all your riflemen end up being identical.
The way I see it they were going for a system like the Panzer Elite had in vCoH, but they got lost along the way. For the Panzer Elite you would get different upgrades because they all had strengths and weaknesses, and you wanted them to compliment each other. You got stgs on a squad to flank, g43s to pick away at range, and schrecks to deal with tanks. You would get different upgrades during the match and use them together. There is no reason at all to ever unlock lmgs and bars and have a mix. The squad upgrades add no strategic diversity to the units, they are essentially brainless upgrades. What I would love to see is a reason to get more than one type of upgrade, and more upgrades added that change the squads role significantly.
What I would like to see is 4 different weapon racks, one for close range, one for mid range, one for long range, and one for AT; Thompsons, bars, m1919s, and bazookas respectively. Unlocking weapon racks unlocks all of them at the same time, and you buy two at a time with the cost factored in (3 thompsons). The weapons are balanced more to only be very effective in heir specific range, but be damn effective there. This would promote better diversity in US play; you would see m1919s fighting in the back while bars hold in the mid and thompsons flank from the rear, with Bazooka squads for support. It would reward strategic depth and combined arms, which is something that USF is lacking in.
This would add much more interesting gameplay to the americans, and result in not all the riflemen squads being just identical units. Vetting up or losing squads will have much more meaning when you know what they are and have a specific place in your army. To be clear, I don't see this as a way to buff or nerf USF, but as a way try provide more interesting gameplay.
Oh well, I know Relic will never implement something like this into the game this late. Just my opinion on how USF could be improved.
/rant |
|
The thing that's nice about crushing is that it is an incredibly predictable way to deal with infantry, and has clear counters. You don't want to go buffing tank guns to deal with infantry better because that just adds more rng wipe potential. When a tank goes for a crush you can see how it is going to go, and you can decide whether to retreat or try to stay in and fight the tank. Getting up to point blank range make the tank very vulnerable to snares or AT infantry.
There is clear counterplay here. You can bait the crush into some great ambushes and if your infantry is ever significantly threatened, just instantly retreat. Crushing only punishes blobs and carelessness. It adds an interesting gameplay dynamic to tank usage that will be gone without it. Without crush you will only see tanks kiting and trying to rng wipe with the cannon at max range. Boring. Crushing is the perfect example of interesting gameplay that requires skill to utilize, and only punishes bad players. The game should not be changed to take out strategic depth and lower the skill ceiling. |
Why revert the change?
Axis mediums weren't ever very good at crushing, only really Allied tanks were. This puts both sides on the same ground.
Use blitz, then Axis tanks are good at crushing.
Or suppress squads with an hmg and crush them EZ. |
|
Should've included a poll.
+1 |
Make it an upgrade mortar pit OR aec OR Bofors 
Add normal mortar. |
|
I forgot about this, these were great ideas.
A thread worthy of being necro'd. |
Thank you - I will try the early mg vs con spam. I've been avoiding it since they always seem to hoorah around it or use green cover but its worth a shot.
Remember that there is a bug in the game now where you can see which way an mg is facing if it is in a house in the fow. Click on the house in the fow and it shows the cone of fire. If you don't put the mg in a building but have it near a key spot, you can usually have a squad walk right into it early game. |
|
Four grens is a bit much in the early game. Investing that much will really set you back in manpower for when the t-70/m5 comes. You want either pgrens, 222, or pack for your 5th unit. You would also want to get the sniper a bit later, and the mg earlier. If you have the mg early and suppress a squad, that's 1/3 their army out already. Keep a gren sorta near to protect the mg and make sure that squad retreats. Now you should be good to go against the other units without too much trouble.
If you are facing cons something like mg-gren-gren-gren-(pgren or pak) will work well. If you held all your shit you can get the pgrens for ai and follow up with the pak before light vehicles hit. I don't recommend a 222 versus cons unless you are planning on using a spotting scope doctrine. The 222 will lose effectiveness when they get at nades and will die when their light vehicles hit the field unless they make a huge mistake. Not worth the manpower in early game, imo. Against maxim spam it can be effective on open maps where you aren't going to get surprise partysan'd.
Dealing with maxim spam is going to be a lot more map dependent. If they don't have partison tactics equipped 222s will work great, otherwise go for a sniper. Build will start the same as before since you don't know what the opponent is going. MG-gren-gren then get a sniper or quick to 222. At some point get a mortar. If you know he will get maxims from bulletins or something you can skip the mg. Remember to get flamethrowers on the pios. Always be expecting the t-70 and prepare for it, or you will lose.
There isn't really a perfect opening for Ostheer, they are fairly flexible in the early game. Pick and choose depending on the map, you will get a feel for it with practice. Watch some Ostheer games to get a better understanding of the faction. Ostheer is probably the weakest faction in 1v1, but that just means try harder. It's not a big enough problem that just playing better wont solve. |
1
United States
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
whorunbartertown
