It sounds like your argument is USF needs nondoc rocket arty because it doesn't have nondoc rocket arty.
By that logic, UKF needs Panda Cavalry.
That is not an argument, that is a fact. My argument have been stated clearly at #1. You may challenge me for not having any data to support how important of a mobile artillery for USF in team game which should be able to shown by the use rate and win rate of infantry company in team game. But I can't, so I can only tell by experience just like you all. |
Guys u still replying ? This is a full-blown troll if a thread like this was for axis it would have been nuked the moment it was created
op is full of shit and wants to play only USF and is not even good enough to play with them
I see, you run out of argument also and decide to go personal. Reported. |
Not how it works. You're the one asking for a change, the burden of proof is on you.
What evidence do you have that USF's existing tools are insufficient?
Open coh2 then you can't find a unit of USF in stock is worked like a priest or calliope in terms of mechanism and performance and purpose. |
OP plays 3v3/4v4
Meta since 2013 has been tanks and heavy artillery spam.
USF doesn't have non doctrinal heavy artillery but it does have other strengths but OP wants heavy artillery like other factions.
OP should realise the difference between NEED and WANT.
Having other strengths means nothing to this topic. Factions can have multiple strengths.
So please start explain why they don't need it and stick to this topic. Trying to get me or any single player involved is meaningless and is off topic. |
They don't need it. HelpingHans's pick in the 2v2 Anniversary Classic was Heavy Cavalry Company.
They can get it if they want it with doctrines, but there are plenty of other ways to knock out team weapons and emplacements.
They need it that's why it exists. HelpingHans himself as a sample size is too small statistically and is unrelated to this topic and there are 3v3 and 4v4 as well which increase the impact of having a mobile heavy artillery as players increase. There are plenty other ways to knock out team weapons and emplacement but they simply can't replace the way and power of mobile rocket artillery providing, thus players build them. |
It's hardly personal. If you feel you need rocket artillery, then don't play a faction without rocket artillery using a commander without rocket artillery.
It's not a difficult concept.
What I am playing is not related to this topic and it won't change the fact that USF has no non doctrinal mobile artillery which they actually need in team game. |
If you can't use USF's other tools (strong offmaps, excellent HE, nondoctrinal medium indirect fire, nondoctrinal vehicular indirect fire, smoke mortars on Shermans) to deal with team weapons, then don't play USF.
I see, you have run out of arguments and decide to go peronal which is off topic in this case. Reported. |
Not at all.
Doctrinal tools have advantages or specialisms nondoctrinal tools don't.
SOV doesn't need the T-34/85, but it does a better job killing tanks than the T-34/76 does.
If the nondoctrinal tools were better than the doctrinal ones, commanders would be pointless.
Your example is not correct. T-34/76 and T-34/85 are same kinds of unit with same mechanism and purpose. The only difference of T-34/76 and T-34/85 is their performance which is reflected by their cost. Simply speaking, SU doesn't lack a generalist tank in stock so you can choose a doctrine without T-34/85. But USF lack a non doctrinal mobile heavy artillery in stock which scott simply can not replace its role due to the different mechanism between them. |
Then 'shit' is what you will be judged on by everyone else.
Off topic again, please focus to the topic
USF doesn't need a nondoctrinal mobile howitzer. The tool is there doctrinally, but it has plenty of other tools to deal with team weapons. The Priest and Calliope are particularly good at it, but if they weren't why would you ever pick those doctrines?
Nah, but if they weren't why would you ever pick those doctrines so you first admit USF really needs mobile artillery that's why people pick those doctrine. And it also proves that scott can not replace the utility of them that's why people pick those doctrine because if scott is as good as priest and calliope why would you ever pick those doctrines? So the problems come. Whenever you need priest or calliope which may be rarely happened in 1v1 but always happened in most team game, why would you ever pick those doctrines without a priest or calliope? So this leads to the problem that many commander are not viable and nearly unseen in team game. |
You've made the case that OKW has 'everything' nondoctrinally and therefore USF should too.
No, it is just to reply insaneHoshi. I use shit to reply shit and you are not the target audience and this will be off topic also if you keep stick to this point and ignore the reason for USF should have non doctrinal mobile artillery which has been listed out at #1.So, please read it carefully.
The counterpoint has been made that OKW does not have everything nondoctrinally. No faction does.
- OST doesn't have a nondoctrinal 60 range tank destroyer.
- SOV doesn't have a nondoctrinal premium brawler tank.
- USF doesn't have nondoctrinal heavy artillery vehicles or snipers.
- OKW doesn't have nondoctrinal onfield reinforcement or snipers.
- UKF doesn't have nondoctrinal mobile indirect fire outright.
Flawed and useless argument like below are not welcomed because they are not constructive:
"Every faction has it's perks and cons, so USF can't have non doctrinal mobile artillery", the reason is describing the nature of asymmetrical design and simply isn't supporting the argument. Even asymmetrical design needs asymmetrical balance that's why this balance section is existed.
|
Hong Kong
![[BoB]MaiTian flag](/images/replay/soviets_flag.jpg)
Relic Entertainment
