|
Ranger like Paratroops allow you to skip some fuel dump.
Rangers let you skip Bar upgrade and grenade so you can go motorpool to get atgun and LVs without impacting your infantry presence. So even if nerfed from their extrem late game stats people would still use them.
At the moment USF timing is out of the balance with BARs being made mandatory following the succession of powercreep WM and DAK recieved on their infantry, and still costing you 40 fuel alone. |
I'm well aware of their current role. I think it makes no sense.
They fill the same role as SSF. I feel like they should be a stronger close range unit, it makes sense due to them having the m1 carbine.
They are as strong as riflemen close to mid range and then get significantly better long range. Check it for youself here
Their slightly lower dps is ofset by having 10hp more per model. Then weapon upgrade favor riflemen at short range but you need 2xBars to outdps 2xLMG para even at close range.
The only drawback for para is that those LMGs don't fire on the move.
+ para get lock free nade. |
|
The problem with USF design is those support centers that kill the faction.
the Sherman is basically an average tank, it was ok for months till Relic decided to powercreep other faction's tank and late game units in general. But now the issue with the sherman is that if Relic powercreep it, it will make MSC / sherman76 even more powerfull and also making the Ez8 lacking identity.
So today we end up with a tank that has been left behind with powercreep, being bad by today's standard but still very good if you decide to go MSC.
And looking at last patch and Relic logic with the hellcat, don't expect any intelligent change about the Sherman in the futur, they nerfed the hellcat while adding another round of powercreep for WM and DAK late game units to the point where you can't reasonably fight a panther or a tiger with a hellcat. |
you should give another try, the game has vastly improved with the last two patches. |
|
Solo game, campaign RTS economical model is outdated. MOBA which is a derivate from RTS are multiplayers first and then started to include solo experience through campaigns and lore design.
The company that will build a core multiplayer RTS with different mods allowing fast paced games to last around 30 minutes or slower paced games for 40/50 minutes will have economical success.
You sell such base game at a competitive price, get a reasonable player base to which you dedicate at first enough support for balance purposes, instaure micro transaction to sustain your game on the long run and then once your game has some renom and interest you develop and sell solo campaigns and scenarios to which you can link various unique skins, abilities or whatever so anybody fell the need to buy it, solo players for the campaign and multi players for the goodies.
|
Relic is not 'independent'. They are owned by a UK based investment fund which is known for consolidation and prepackaged debt.
As Relic enters its death throes, I think its a good lesson for people today on WORKING. Work is a job. You are there to make money. Relic on the other hand was clearly run as an adult daycare. Pandering to pandemic woes. Healthy buttery males choosing to 'work' remotely. Playing dungeons and dragons at work. Offering scholarships and internships based on SEXUAL PREFERENCE. Not based on talent or individual drive.
Voted the Best Place to Work in 2022 Canada, well congrats, you don't win these awards by overworking your employees. Their job was to MAKE MONEY. This is the sole reason a business exists.
Instead, SEGA NA employees, soured by the fact SEGA did not give them the same bonuses as SEGA ASia (who actually create titles and games that make money) voted to unionize. Why would you vote to Unionize when you are BLEEDING money. You hold no cards and try to strong arm your employer? Congratulations, enjoy the bread lines.
The skeleton crew left at Relic is now on the clock. These firms don't pour good money into bad. They will continue to eviscerate what is left of salaried talent until they can squeak out a profit. The product will suffer even more.
From the start this game was an absolute disaster. Charging people triple A prices for grade A sh1t. 3 years of development. 350 employees. UNREAL. I am sorry if I am being harsh but they 100% deserve it.
I'm not sur if Sega doesn't share the blame of the game issues. I also don't think Coh3 sold that badly if we look at the market expectation for such specific game genre (RTS). |
|
At the moment I don't see the need of reducing the resource outcome at least in 2vs2, I don't have the feeling that late game units are arriving that early and early/mid game LVs and units have their role and impact.
I'm not sure that would help 3vs3 or 4vs4, the problem isn't the resource but the concentration, we've seen that in those modes the side with the highest winrate is usually the one with the best indirect fire units. It has little to do with ressources.
There isn't such late game unit that win the game on their own like in coh2, or at least not until now that they buffed the Grant... which they could undo next patch. |
|
You need the armor upgrade to get the sherman valuable vs panzershrek, so you better callin a bulldozer anyway since they also get the upgrade. It's also part of USF design decision locking you out of upgrades with selecting you support center.
The MSC armor upgrade reduce the pshrek damage from 160 to 120.
Now if people are already saying the Pz4 isn't great and prefers pshreck blob, then how can they be surprised that the sherman which has lower infantry fighting power is not used.
Checking the value, the sherman has worst scatter value (1.5) and its damage model set at 3 while the Pz4 has 1.32 scatter value and its damage model set at 4.
As for the comparison between the Brumbar and the 105mm, just know that the Brumbar barrel is sorted as explosive weapon and does 160 damage per shot while the 105mm is classified as ballistic weapon with 120 damage per shot. What get the sherman 105 over the brumbar is the turret and range, 35 vs 30 for the brumbar. The rest of it Brumbar advantage.
Not saying there is a balance issue here but that you can't complain about sherman not used and 105 over used in the current situation.
|
|
Because you don't build them only to fight Pz even if you decide to upgrade them. They are atrocious at vet0 to kill or even damage any infantry squads. On top of that there will be more Marders, atgun, pshreck on the field that Pz are the lesser of your problems on the field till +20 minutes ingame.
Let's say that late game medium tanks level of threat is so low that you better over invest into bulldozer that have direct impact on what they aim at and keep a couple of mines + an atgun in backup in case a Pz3 or Pz4 shows up. |
|
Regular sherman lose to jaegershrek, regular panzer4 wins vs SSF zook. |
0
Relic Entertainment
