|
I like USF because the lategame revolves around combined-tank arms (if thats even a thing), and forces you to micro multiple weaker tanks vs. singular, better tanks. It really feels fun in the lategame because of the emphasis on ambushes and tactics.
That being said, earlygame is a little silly in 1 vs. 1 vs. ostheer, but this I feel is more a problem of ostheers design mixed with USFs design, over anything else. |
|
Ostheer sniper is definitely the stronger sniper now, but that in no way makes it OP. It can still be chased down back to base by an M20 or an m3 quite easily and wiped, and can be instantly killed by a soviet sniper.
You have to look at the ost sniper vs. soviet sniper in terms of the overall armies. The soviet sniper can be used in groups of 2 quite easily, and protected even more easily because the opposing factions do not have an early light vehicle counter. The opposing factions also have smaller squad sizes on average, so the sniper needs to have a lower fire rate.
In contrast, the ostheer sniper comes out against factions that have more infantry models per squad, more manpower to work with early game, and light vehicles that can be your third unit out of the gate.
The ostheer sniper needs the extra HP to make him a little more survivable against random RNG, while still keeping him weak vs. small-arms. It also needs the higher ROF to make counter-sniping possible, and to bleed allied squads at the same rate as the soviet sniper.
The only faction that really hurts vs. the german sniper is USF, because they are forced into purchasing expensive riflemen early, which bleed lots of manpower vs. snipers, and don't get a light vehicle (excluding WC51) until the M20. However, I think that it is a fine dynamic, since the loss of the sniper is a HUGE drain to the already manpower starved ostheer faction. |
So just for clarification (I don't own the Tiger Ace commander):
Tiger Ace's target weak point currently works the same way as the PaK's TWP?
No, tiger ace's target weakpoint works like the ostheer puma/ stugg/ stuge TWP, which is a targeted ability. It is not bugged like the old pak TWP, so if you call it on a target, and you keep the target in range, it WILL hit.
This also means that you can fire a shell, que TWP, then fire another round directly after TWP ignoring reload. |
|
Commash picked side - allies
|
|
Game 2
Game one recording forgotten, but victory to Talisman 103 VP to 0 VP |
|
Great 1v1 that showcases p4s and ostruppen vs. t34/85s. |
why would you attack the sherman? let the schrecks kill it and go for the jackson; it'll die faster. also, keep backing up. even if you don't hit as much you'll be hit less and your infantry can do the damage.
I'd rather focus the sherman because the sherman is the biggest problem to my infantry, and without a sherman, USF inf lategame can't standup to OKW inf.
Better to kill a sherman than to let both escape. |
|
I swear this sound is getting louder each patch. It used to be bearable, but today I had it happen to me and I almost fell off my chair.
Hopefully relic will pay for my tinnitus. |
Jacksons have 60 range, and they tend to having things between them and the Jacksons that want them dead. Do unsupported Jacksons suck ass? Yes, the same can be said for every TD in the game.
HVAP rounds still do 240 damage.
You don't need to flank the JPIV to penetrate it, the main gun on the Jackson will frontally penetrate a JPIV 86% of the time at maximum range.
Once upon a time the JPIV was a hard counter to American T4, not anymore.
It's not about forcing it away, it's about being able to fight it without being kited to hell and back. Forcing it away does nothing because it's fast enough to scoot into range, fire, and then retreat while taking only 1 hit.
JP4 have 60 range too, and you can't expect me to believe that the jackson has infantry infront but the JP4 doesn't have the famous schrek-volks nearby? When both of these units are supported (as they should be), the JP4 has the advantage due to its higher DPS and smaller target size, while the Jackson has to rely more on getting "just" out of the JP4s arc of fire. 1v1, jackson loses 100% of the time assuming supporting infantry. The thing is, it will never be a 1v1, and the jackson will usually have a sherman supporting it. THIS is what tips the battle in the jackson's favor, by forcing the JP4 to attack the sherman, the USF player can get free damage off on the jp4, since the sherman is the biggest threat to the supporting infantry.
I like the current matchup and I think that it is perfectly fine as is. JP4 is quite powerful when supported, just strong enough as justified by OKW's income. I see no reason why people think the jackson is too powerful vs. anything, it takes longer to kill a p4 than an su85, and is a reliable threat to heavies now. |
|
The problem I have with the 120mm mortar is that there is no counter to it in the early game. On some maps (like langreskaya), it can sit on a very defensive position, and still reach targets half way across the map, while dealing very good damage to them. Even sneaking up and grenading it doesn't always work, because it can still retreat with one man manning the gun.
I feel like the 120mm would be more balanced if it required 2-3 men to man it in order to keep it from being decrewed. This would make it easier to wipe if you catch it unawares and force the soviet player to be more intelligent in his deployment of the weapon.
All paks and mortars and howitzers work off of the 2-man principle, since they are not meant to directly engage the enemy. There is no reason for the 120mm to have the same survivability of a maxim when it is not meant to see the enemy directly at all. |
3
nora
commash
commash
Relic Entertainment
보드카 중대 
