Stuka:
-Single plane
-needs a spotter
+harder to dodge (but possible)
+used against targets usually with lower health, which results more often in their destruction
you don't use it to counter at guns or infantry, in fact it's annoying when it targets infantry instead of tanks.
P47d
+ 2 planes
+ spots for itself
- rockets can miss
+ provides recon when no target is in target area
- can be easily dodged with blitzkrieg
The Stuka loiter was USELESS before it was buffed several patches ago. I don't see the reason why we need to return to this stat, giving the fact its a endgame ability for a faction that has a weak early game.
If you want to nerf the Stuka, you need to nerf the P47d aswell.
Both can be countered with AA, a fact a lot of people here seem to forget.
I don't complain about those abilities, because I actually use AA instead of whining something is OP.
I never said that the P47 doesn't need a nerf, but you cannot justify an OP ability by saying that it is fine due to a weak early game. By that admission, you would say that the -NDA- abilities that you were so vehemently against were perfectly fine.
There is 0 reason for the JU87 CAS loiter to oneshot medium tanks. Medium tanks are a huge investment that should not be nullified by clicking a button. No other ability is as powerful as the JU87 loiter, yet the JU87 is also on 200mu, which is cheaper than the p47 and only 20mu more than the IL2 strafe.
The fact that the stuka shoots at weaker targets has nothing to do with it. The Stuka straight up deals more damage on one run than 2 p47s do, and this is bad. If the p47 was called on a P4 and the Stuka loiter was called on a Sherman, both of which have the same HP, the Sherman would die on the first strike while the P4 would not. Also, the stuka does in fact spot for itself, as do all loitering aircraft abilities. The stuka will also neverr fire at infantry if it spots armor first. If your enemy armor moves into the zone after the unit has locked on, then it will shoot at the infantry, but that is just your enemy using game mechanics in his favor. I can assure you that if the P47 could target infantry as well, it would be even better. The 2 planes for the P47 doesn't mean much, since in higher game modes the OKW will always have a T4 emplacement for AA. The reason the P47 was increased to two planes was because the single plane strike was shot down too often by the Germans' higher access to AA.
Players without AA should have a chance to dodge abilities. The IR pathfinders have counter play (shoot them) but their artillery is very much dodgeable without requiring the squad to die. Not to mention the fact that AA only helps stop subsequent strikes, the first strike will almost always hit. Also, the vid you posted has the tank already moving away before the strike is called. That isn't a player dodging after it is called on an engagement, that is a player already retreating to base for other reasons.
There is no reason to whine about nerfs on the possibility of an overnerf. Otherwise, IS2, old ISU, and T34/85 are fine because they may get overnerfed into uselessness like in the early days. (Doesn't make sense, does it)
You still haven't given a valid reason for the Stuka to be more effective, cheaper, and have more utility (AI) than the P47 strafe. |
I've had the P-47 destroy numerous tiger tanks in the one game. Not to mention the all exclusive ace. Your bias is ridiculous katitof.
Not to mention to pay 200 munis to shoot at at-guns and support infantry is plain broken.
I don't think you understand. The problem we have with the stuka loiter is that it can kill a full health medium tank in one run. That is completely broken. 2 P47 runs cannot do that.
This allows the German player to dodge the P47. The allied player on the other hand, must not only move to escape the zone, but be wary of any pathing issues that may cause the tank to slow down, as the Stuka loiter does in fact chase targets.There is no reason for a strafe to kill a full health tank.
A strafe finishing a damaged tank in one run make sense, but a strafe wiping high fuel investment units in one strike is just plane silly (Kappa). The USF mechanized artillery and several NDA strikes were nerfed because they were able to oneshot OKW base buildings, why should the Stuka be able to do the same to allied mesium tanks, which are a much more sizeable investment? |
I think its overperforming for cost alright, and I would very much support the suggestion for constant off-map timing regardless of map position.
With that being said, the CAS Stuka gun run would be perfectly fine for cost under the premises you outlined as it is easy to dodge when not coming in close to the map edge. If it would not kill mediums, there would be no point to it.
As for loiter Stuka, it gets more complicated. If it was merely effective against light vehicles and support weapons it would be virtually useless. In fact, in practical gameplay terms, you'll almost never want it to prioritise inf over vehicles, as the main application of it is to kill tanks, and especially heavies like IS-2s and ISUs which OH otherwise struggles with. In fact, OH lategame abilities should from a balance perspective be somewhat more potent relatively, as you'll almost always play on the backfoot given equal player skill. So its a bit of a conundrum really.
The thing is, the change I floated on the loiter strafe would not make it ineffective against mediums. It would still deal good damage to them, about 50% HP. What it does change is the strafes' ability to one shot. It the strafe could not kill a tank with one run, (the same way the P47 strafe does), it would still deal heavy damage and force all tanks out of the area. It just wouldn't punish the player severely for having medium tanks get stuck on a piece of shrub or the like. You can always chase the tanks with your own armor and deal the rest of the damage if you need to, and in this way the stuka loiter would be an area denial and assault support ability, just like the P47. |
|
No off map can deal as much damage per strafe as Stuka CAS. The Stuka mg strafe only pins, and deals no damage, so it requires other units nearby to deal damage to the pinned units, otherwise its a waste of resources. The P47 will never kill a tank on the first(/second) pass if the tank is at full health, meaning that the P47 is a supplementary source of AT as well. The IL2 strafe is also only useful to support engagements. An IL2 strafe that is not supporting an assault will do close to no damage.
The one exception is the Stuka CAS strafe/ loiter. Each of these abilities deals 120 damage per cannon round (same as that of panzershreck), allowing it to easily kill full health medium tanks in one run. It makes no sense for a loiter to be able to one shot tanks, especially when the USF already struggles late game to keep their armor alive, and have no high HP heavy generalist tanks as a fallback option like the other 3 factions. Off maps should never be able to do all the work by themselves, this is why the old USF mechanized artillery was so broken, you could one shot OKW base buildings, which are a significant investment, equivalent in cost to a Jackson/Sherman.
The Stuka CAS doctrine single strafe should get some kind of fix to allow it to not arrive instantly when the target is near the edge of the map, while still being just as effective against targets in the middle of the map. This way players will have 4 seconds or so to react to the strafe at all times, just as they would for any other offmap. Remember, claiming "edge of map" is not an excuse. An offmap strike should have no advantages based merely on its distance from the edge of the map.
The Stuka Loiter strike should be toned down to be more inline with the P47 strafe. This means that it should not have the ability to one strike tanks. dealing 320 damage over the strafe would be a good number, so it would still kill light armor (which can dodge shots by moving), but no longer one shot Shermans and Jacksons, which are significant fuel purchases for the USF player. Remember, it can still attack infantry and support weapons, so it denies an area to not just armor, but infantry as well, unlike the P47.
Please tell me why I am being unreasonable, and not in a way that has your entire rebuttal being "nope". |
|
I really don't see how some people can say that the P47 is OP, and then state that the Stuka loiter isn't for whatever reason. The Stuka deals large damage to units, can oneshot medium tanks and infantry squads, is cheaper, and can come with a heavy tank. The P47 is more expensive, has an AOE, has two planes (so is harder to kill), has less accuracy, cannot one shot medium tanks, and cannot target infantry. The stuka also generally shoots at lighter armor while the P47 strike fights heavier tanks.
Just looking at the stats of the two strikes, you can see a serious imbalance in terms of the cost effectiveness. If the JU87 loiter is going to be as powerful as it is now, it should at the least be as expensive as the P47 strike (I would argue that it needs to be more expensive). It is just silly that allied stock armor, which is much more fragile than axis armor, needs to deal with a strike that is as powerful as the stuka loiter. The argument that the Stuka CAS is needed to kill the IS2 is not an argument. The IS2 may be too powerful, but we cannot balance offmaps around singular units and ignore the rest of the armies. Otherwise, why not balance the IL2 strafe around fighting the King Tiger, and make it deal the same damage as the Stuka strafe?
I would rather see both strikes toned down. The loiter should be toned down to IL2 levels, with a similar cost. P47 may be ok, since USF doesn't really have other good counter to axis super heavy TDs. It may need to be less long lasting.
Just my opinion. |
|
Allies usually ant to have large maps with many flanking routes and easily accessible cutoffs, while Axis usually wants more focused maps that have easier to defend points. Axis maps also typically favor long range combat, while Allied maps have close range.
Veto for Axis:
Vaux Farmland
Ettelbruck Station
Trois Ponts
Semoisky Winter
Veto for Allies:
Crossing in the Woods
Minsk Pocket
Rails and Metal
Road to Kharkov
These are of course just personal preferences, and quite vague at that. OKW, USF, OST, and SOV all have different strengths, and some will favor different maps from their counterpart. For example, Trois Ponts is a very nice map for the soviets due to shock troops and 120mm, but is hard for the USF because of how hard it is for USF to attack OKW forward HQs with indirect fire. |
|
Demos need to be changed, this is a point I agree with. They are too cost effective, since soviets do not really have many other choices for their munitions. There have been many good ideas on how to balance them out.
However, this thread has brought up a very good point, soviets don't really have many munition sinks. This is why demos are such a big problem, since soviets can spam them out without really worrying about the cost. Soviets should have some kind of lategame munitions sink for conscripts, as they currently get outscaled far too hard. (please don't say utility, because conscript lategame utility is also worse than that of grenadiers, since grens have a better snare and a better nade). I do not want to see a brainless lmg upgrade for conscripts however. I find lmgs to be a cancer upon the infantry combat in this game. Thus, I would like to see one of two things:
1) A combat Veteran upgrade when T3/T4 is unlocked, giving conscripts "better equipment" per upgraded squad, basically getting rid of their received accuracy penalty, maybe giving them a slight bonus as well. This upgrade could also aid penals, but is probably not needed.
2) A PPS43 upgrade that gives the squad 2 PPS43s. The PPS43 upgrade should give cons better close and mid range firepower (assault rifle weapon profile), and should be stack-able with the doctrinal PPSH41 upgrade, so that players can make very close range focused squads late game if needed, and would also give the PPSH41 upgrade a more useful role, since it is currently not very useful. |
|
You guys had a pretty great start for axis. You moved your units together, then pushed together and capped the entirety of the map quickly, due to your opponent's odd 2 RE -> pathfinder opening.
At this point, you guys started making bad calls. Even though you knew that your opponent not only went for soviet T1 and had access to guard motor, you decide to start building many mg42 bunkers. MG42 bunkers cost 60mu and 150mp to build, and are countered with a single 45 mu satchel charge, an AT gun, or flanking. The bunkers lost you a large amount of munitions and manpower throughout the game, for no reason whatsoever when an mg42 would have been far more useful. If you want to build mg bunkers, here are some tips:
-Always have the player who went for CAS build them, since they have access to fuel conversion.
-When placing bunkers, make sure that you make flanking routes unviable with barbed wire and mines.
-Don't use bunkers as you only line of defense. Have an infantry mg42 in front, with an mg bunker behind to fend off flanks. Have a pio flamer nearby to spot for the defense, and to discourage suppressed units grenading your mg42. Optionally add a mortar to bleed suppressed enemies. Have a pak parked nearby to damage armor.
-These tips may seem like an excesive cost for a defensive line, but they are important. This is called defense in depth, and it allows your defensive line to respond to multiple threats and work at its utmost efficiency.
You guys did not tech complimentary. What does this mean? This means that you should fill in each other's gaps with your respective teching, allowing you each to focus on one thing. For example, in this game, you both went t2 even though one of you had CAS and one of you had a doctrine with tank smoke. You biggest headache that game was the enemy 3x pathfinder + bar blob. All you needed to kill it was a single P4. If the CAS player had built t2 and a pak or 2, to counter light armor while the other player went for a quick Panzer 4 through T3, you could have wrecked your opponents' infantry heavy army AND the first Sherman, potentially winning you the game.
At around 15 minutes, your ally gets assaulted by both of your enemies, and loses just about his whole army, including 2 pak guns. One of these guns is destroyed, but both could easily have been captured by your enemies if they had been paying attention. All you had to do was take 3 seconds to target a stuka mg strafe at the enemy pathfinder horde, and your ally would not have lost 800mp + worth of units.
Good useage of the flamer HT through the game to deal damage.
You do a good job by destroyed an early SU85 from your enemy, but continue to blob your 3 lmg grens and 2-3 pshreck pgrens around the battlefield, even though you know that your opponents have access to T4, and thus, Katyushas. This leads to several unit wipes through the game from Sherman HE rounds and mortar fire, for no reason. Pgrens w/ shrecks are not a blob unit. They are far too expensive and fragile for this. Pgrens are specialists, use them behind LOS blockers to ambush enemy armor, and to support Pak40s from being flanked. Never buy more than 2, since pgrens will bleed manpower.
Your ally, who went Spearhead (w/ tiger) not only buys 2 mortar HT, which is overkill, but he also techs to T4 and buys a Brummbar. A Brummbar is much more expensive than the first tiger, and less effective vs. armor as well. The Brummbar ends up dying to an overexertion, because it hits a mine when there is an upgraded pio squad right next to it.
The resulting delay on his tiger causes it to come out very late in the game, when your opponents had 2 Shermans, 1 Jackson, 1 SU85, and 2 T34/85s. He then promptly loses the tiger due to overextending it. He gets buttoned at max range, and decides not to do anything about it, and is killed by a P47 attack + mark target + 2 Shermans.
Your ally floats 900 mp while waiting for a tiger. This is pointless, as the tiger only costs 640mp. Your ally had a piteously small army, and could have purchased a new squad to help fill out his ranks at this point.
You guys had very poor pak micro. They were seldom supported, and as a result were killed quickly by roving enemy blobs. Always have paks by the majority of your army, they do no one good when they are alone.
You both went for T4, this is pointless. T4 has specialized units, which require significant fuel investments to be useful. A CAS player should never go straight to T4 unless their ally is building a Pz4 anyways. A CAS player will almost always get armor out slower than a regular player. Not to mention, double T4 leaves you vulnerable midgame due to the lack of armor to counter infantry.
Never build a bunker lategame, unless it is part of the defense I told you about earlier. bunkers die easily enough early, but lategame are killed by literally any unit except mgs and conscripts.
Throughout this game, you relied on CAS abilities:
-Always point your strikes from the closest side of the map. This way, the plane will shoot its payload faster and make them harder to dodge. This is especially useful for the Stuka CAS strafe.
-You used Stuka mg strafe well
-You used Stuka CAS strafe incorrectly. Stuka CAS should always be used on units that are not actively being monitored. If a unit is being micro ed, use the strafe behind the vehicle to punish it for retreating and force it to move towards your AT.
-Never use Stuka bombing strike on mobile units. Yes, it could hit, but most likely your opponent will notice and dodge it, wasting 180 of your munitions.
Other than that, you guys did a good job coordinating, and just need practice. Keep it up! :} |
that means we'll revert to what it was before, where cons couldnt fit into a piece of green cover so they would always get suppressed from mg42s cause one model was always sticking out.
This actually doesn't have to be true at all. It was hypothesized by Cruzz several months ago that it would be possible to spread squads when they were not in cover/ on the move, and have them use the current cover mechanics when needed. That Hypothesis was tested and proven correct by several modders since then.
We can have our cake and eat it too. It all depends on whether or not Relic wants to implement the change (step one would be to let them know the fix is possible). |
|
I'll review this this weekend, after I have some free time. |
nora
commash
commash
Relic Entertainment
보드카 중대 
