I really can't understand what you're saying beyond being frustrated by an OKW blob. |
Elite Riflemen:
The current changes are great. I don't think changing them any further is necessary.
Soviet Weapon Teams:
A successful flank with sturmpios already wrecks a maxim no problem. Reducing squad size to four could make it impossible to retreat in time. You need to find a way to make it more vulnerable to indirect fire and snipers (which are still useless) without making it any more vulnerable to assault troops... somehow...
Long Range Combat:
Not all short range units are suffering as a result. Sturmpioneers and shock troops are just right for the point they arrive on the field. Panzergrenadiers and any US troops with thompsons are weak. I would say reduce M1919 damage a little bit, but obersoldaten and upgraded grenadiers are fine.
Took a while to think about this. This post still sums up exactly how I feel.
I don't think it's elite riflemen that are a problem anymore, riflemen may need a SLIGHT nerf (slight is capitalized for emphasis) in the way of their long ranged damage, but that is it as far as riflemen go. Again, I don't think that's a problem with the doctrinal ability.
As far as the Soviet Weapon Teams. I'm a little perplexed that this hasn't been the case yet because I assumed that German Weapon Teams were hardier per model to compensate against the 6 man squads. Just take away two models from the soviet weapon teams and spread their stats throughout the remaining four. They are vulnerable to flanking maneuvers, the problem persists that snipers are WORTHLESS against Soviets and decent against US. This would fix that while not making them anymore vulnerable to small arms fire.
Long range combat isn't a problem. Infact, when I do play OKW, my time spent to microing a glass cannon (sturmpios) has really taught me just how important true vision and tactical movement really can be. Sturmpios drop like flies, but if you handle them well, bait a riflemen squad around a corner for example, you really can handle the long range advantage very well. As what Romeo said in the post I'm quoting, it's not short range combat, it's that certain units are underperforming. Paratroopers could use a little attention, though I've been pleasantly surprised with their thompson upgrades more than once, and PGs haven't been relevant in quite a long time. |
I could be wrong, but I feel like there are two main problems that crop up regarding war spoils. The first being that some players were shouting out how the game was becoming a pay2win model. I never thought that was the case and was more than happy to put a couple dollars down for content that was made post release. However, I can understand the stigma created.
My first thought when War Spoils was introduced was that this was an effort to remedy that complaint and probably an introductory phase for whatever may be planed for DoW3. Obviously the latter is speculation.
The problem is if you don't play religiously you have no hope of gaining what commander you want or what skins you want, or bulletins or some such. You're cast into a lottery that is incredibly frustrating. Instead of opening the box for what should be a joyous surprise, it is almost ALWAYS a disappointment -- this is not a good system.
Solution -
What I would consider a very practical fix would be to allow both commanders and skins to be purchasable, this allows players who aren't able to play as often as others a means to acquire these items as prior to WFA, and for bulletins, faceplates, victory strikes, commanders, and skins all to be purchasable by points that you accrue through gameplay.
This kills the dreaded lottery system as well as provides an actual concrete road of progression. A player will feel much more inspired to earn points if he knows he can spend them on what he WANTS. Obviously commanders would cost more war spoil points than a bulletin, but there's no waste. You have an actual route to earn what you want. |
They have many advanatages as they have many large disadvantages. Like most factions, only more accute. What they have works very well, what they are missing leaves larger holes than in other armies.
If you have problems vs them, you need to play as them to see their flaws.
This. |
Using it in the field > doing math
It blows.
That's an incredibly narrow reply to someone who laid out actual numbers and points. |
I've said it a fair amount. I really think the only thing the panther needs is a durability buff. Increase its health so that it can justify its role. You can't mass produce them like the bulk of the medium tanks, but their function is similar. As a result, they should be able to withstand some firepower. |
Soviets
Agreed.
OKW can be messy to figure out what you can and can't do with it, and is really punishing when you mess up.
Ostheer is set up so that you have a pretty narrow route of what you can or can't build to be effective. The general list being grens with lmgs, maybe an MG42 or two, paks, P4s, and doctrinal call in tank.
Soviets have a decent amount of wiggle room and a variety of routes to build off of.
Though, honestly, I'd say if you're set on 1v1's, you should really give USF a try unless you just have no desire for that. |
Obviously the patch hasn't been out long enough to make any real assessments beyond numbers and theories.
But I don't really see the negative to the rocket radius being reduced. If it's still taking out a chunk of units without obliterating them in the first volley, isn't that desirable?
Squad damage and blob punishment is a good thing. Outright wiping away squads is terrible design.
Obviously the Panzerwerfer is kind of... I'm not sure what's going on there. |
stuka can win the war alone.
When there is allies advance, click on it.
When there is allies retreat, click on it.
When there is a allies truck, click on it.
When there is a allies cache, click on it.
When there is allies stealing VP, click on it.
When there is a allies occupied house, click on it.
When there is allies S-mine, click on it.
When there is an allies base, click on it.
When there is allies repairing their panzers, click on it.
When there is nothing more to shoot, never-mind, click on it.
Uhg. |
This, I think, is the primary reason (also the M15/Elite Rifle nerfs, among other things has been huge - the poll is a few patches old) for the difference in opinion between myself and others. Ostheer, played to near perfection, is highly potent - unfortunately achieving this level of play is difficult to say the least.
I think that's the problem.
This might be a debate for another time, but should "balance" be considered balance when it must be played to perfection? I'm honestly not sure, but I'm inclined to say no.
I'm not saying ostheer needs a buff or some such(I do think they need fixes though), and you very well may be right, but I think the rub here is that US has much more wiggle room.
I'm spending a little too much time on thinking while I post which probably means I should wrap it up. However, even with this information, I do still think US needs to be edged some, and just that -- edged. Big sweeping changes ruin balance. A good start would be nerfing riflemen long range. As I said before, I feel that Osth and Soviet are pretty close to what they need to be (minus katyusha's and a few other random squad wiping abilities, ISU among them), I just think OKW and US could stand to be tweaked to be on their level. If there was anything Ostheer needed, it's choices. Because right now you play be rigid rules, and if you don't, you lose. It's incredibly boring. |