"[Team game] USF needs non doctrinal mobile artillery"
QFT
Cant you distinguish a request or a suggestion and a statement or claim that tries to define a faction?
Thread: [Team game] USF needs non doctrinal mobile artillery16 Mar 2019, 10:02 AM
Cant you distinguish a request or a suggestion and a statement or claim that tries to define a faction? In: COH2 Balance |
Thread: [Team game] USF needs non doctrinal mobile artillery16 Mar 2019, 09:55 AM
So you want to go deep into it and repeat the off topic meta which some faction get something and finally comes with a conclusion that every faction has its perks and cons so let's withdraw from balancing this game,right? In: COH2 Balance |
Thread: [Team game] USF needs non doctrinal mobile artillery16 Mar 2019, 09:52 AM
That's why I didn't make any claim on how a faction is supposed to be or designed. In: COH2 Balance |
Thread: [Team game] USF needs non doctrinal mobile artillery16 Mar 2019, 09:40 AM
Said by thedarkarmadillo which is not a game designer of coh2. Yet, OKW is meant to have and even get doctrinal lefh for no reason?
So prove it? Hey, come on, you need support for your argument. So having stock calliope will be fine as it is not a howitzer.
So you have addressed the issue and you can simply start another thread to persuade people to remove all stock mobile heavy artillery which is one way to balance this game. But that's another story and is off topic in this thread.
Again, they works differently from mobile heavy artillery and serve different purpose. Pack and M1 mortar is a redundant for each other. It is as simple as you cant replace stuka with pack howitzer. There are situations that a player needs a stuka instead of isg and USF get screwed if he pick the wrong commander which OKW players never do.
A whole paragraph that can be concluded in "Every factions have its perks and cons" which is an utterly useless argument that just describing what asymmetrical design is which everyone here knows about that and have 0 value to make a discussion meaningful. I even have a longer list what OKW owns while the others doesn't. You can simply spam this meaningless argument in every balance thread that you dont like, because the meaning behind this argument is simple which is saying that you cant balance it in anyway since they are different faction which is contradicted to the balance purpose of this section. In: COH2 Balance |
Thread: [Team game] USF needs non doctrinal mobile artillery16 Mar 2019, 08:23 AM
ATG is not behind a doctrine no matter you think it is reliable or not. Meh support weapon is not behind a doctrine no matter you think how meh it is. Smoke is not behind a doctrine no matter how useless you think they were. But priest does locks behind doctrine. Please start another thread if you are not satisfy with their performance. Your arguments simply don't stand to forbid USF get stock mobile artillery. You simply get access to anything in stock as OKW just not like the USF. So you argument against me is simply invalid. Not to mention you have best tank in stock and the most cost efficient infantry and elite infantry as well to cover the weakness you think. Tools aren't always there unless it is in stock. Simply speaking, you are off topic. And the things you said is not related to USF should have stock mobile artillery not unless you can prove that they are related. In: COH2 Balance |
Thread: [Team game] USF needs non doctrinal mobile artillery16 Mar 2019, 07:37 AM
Oh look another kingdun3284 post where he demands USF have no weaknesses and everything available to them. That's OKW which have been no weakness and everything available to them. In: COH2 Balance |
Thread: [Team game] USF needs non doctrinal mobile artillery16 Mar 2019, 07:32 AM
Agreed, they need some sort of long range barrage tool. Something mobile to suit the usf design but cheap enough that it can fit into their lineup so, as you suggest, USF can have a diverse build. 4 paragraph to show yourself have no understanding that they are two different types of unit which serve completely different purpose. You don't have to hold the line when using stuka, priest and katyusha etc.Any player can tell the difference between them and scott which have different mechanism to work in the game and that's why USF have priest. But they should not be locked behind doctrine. In: COH2 Balance |
Thread: [Team game] USF needs non doctrinal mobile artillery16 Mar 2019, 01:29 AM
well what would u remove for the priest ? Would you mind explaining your question in more detail? 1. What to remove? 2. Why do you remove? In: COH2 Balance |
Thread: [Team game] USF needs non doctrinal mobile artillery16 Mar 2019, 01:24 AM
It can be priest or calliope. Reasons: 1. They lack this type of weapon in stock to punish heavy static play in team game which leads to USF player have to pick the only two commander with Priest/Calliope everytime. 2. To promote diversify play style of USF and allow more strategic options in stock for them. 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. In: COH2 Balance |
Thread: Bring USF Artillery inline with OKW15 Mar 2019, 17:24 PM
then why u compare: There isn't a mechanism distinguishable between a LV or LT. They are all following standard direct fire vehicle mechanism with backward button, needs engineer to repair instead of reinforcement and have armour and etc. What makes them different(one is called light tank, another is light vehicle) is the value of armour which is performance related and have nothing to do with mechanism. In: COH2 Balance |