|
okay, ty. is the loadout count the maximum number of models, and for the amount that is spawned out in a squad would I use the squad_loadout.ext in the attrib editor? |
|
How can I have squads be spawned with say 4 members, but have the option of being reinforced up to 10? |
|
rifles need the bar to get up close, and rifles get up close because they use the bar. it seems like circular logic tbh, if m1919 was nondoc i guarantee that the BAR would see almost no use, except for possibly giving a squad 1 bar and 1 m1919 to get a little bit of both worlds. |
|
sturms repair tanks at increased speed and can defend the tank against allied tanks that dive in thinking they can finish it off. if you want to use the shrek as frontline anti tank, dont, its not meant for that anymore because OKW has an aggressive early to midgame plus faust on their core troop and the raktenwerfer which is micro intensive but the best AT gun for supporting infantry pushes.
|
Here you go: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z_ZrH0gUcr0
Made by eliw00d, and very informative, just like his other tutorials!
ty that is the exact one i was looking for. |
|
i remember watching a tutorial on going into the archives to change what weapons infantry can carry, could someone either link that tutorial i cant find, or just tell me how? |
Not when you are playing agasint USF mortar.
When was a last time? Practically always. 1919 are not better than BARs. They are different.
It all depends on which map do you play, how your opponent plays.
Would you pick 1919 over BARs on La Glieze? I don't think so. On the other hand you have Mink Pocket, perfect map for 1919.
Or think about old Stalingrad. Would you buy BARs or LMGs? Would you upgrade Paras with Thompsons or 1919?
Like I said, DPS is just part on a weapon but higher DPS doesn't mean that the weapon is superior right away.
it has to do more with the dps curve as well, favoring positive MP engagements. |
There is one reason.
With G43 Grens can become mobile without losing much DPS
DPS>mobility in almost all cases, unless a weapon does full DPS while on the move because then you open up potential for kiting and flanking. When was the last time a USF player said "I would rather have BARs than M1919s because they can fire on the move?" Practically never. |
Idk but it seems like way to much script work.
It easier and faster to adjust stats, like keep double 1919 but make their DPS similar to DP28.
All LMGs need cost nerfs imo. Look at the G43 upgrade for Grens, the upgrade itself is fine but there is no reason for it when 15 munis more gets you the LMG42. Same principle with the BAR vs the LMG42.
I'm fine with Obers LMG staying cheap because the unit itself is MP intensive however. |
|
Pretty much the entire meta of the game is predicated on bad or wildly asymmetric balance choices so I don't see much changing even with a patch, except for possibly USF falling out like last year or Ost being #1 overall again. (Not OP, just good.)
-USF mortar is literally retarded.
-Ost sniper is also literally retarded.
-222 countering T70, AEC, and Stuart is retarded.
-UKF lack of snare- retarded.
-OKW and US tech structure... still retarded.(Volks that are 10 MP more than Cons is also retarded.)
-Double LMG rifles/tommies is retarded.
-Call-ins outside of early game vehicles and heavies-retarded.
-4 man squads for Ost- retarded.
-rifle grenades-retarded.
-Soviet infantry design-retarded.
-UKF lack of mortar/mortar pit is retarded.
-commander balance for Non Soviet, non UKF is retarded.
Pretty much all the non-design bullshit has to be swept away in one patch or there will more tears, and even more retarded more balance choices because of said tears.
|
0
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
