u just compared the kubel to the m20 why can’t I compare Stuka to pak howy or m8a1 ? Is it the double standards ?
because kubel and m20 share the same mechanism and serve the same purpose. But stuka and pak and m8a1 doesn't share the same mechanism and serve different purpose in nature. I can have more example, you can't compare bazooka with jackson although they serve the arguable same purpose which is anti vehicle (one is light, one is heavy) because they don't have the same mechanism , therefore you should compare bazooka with panzershreck or PIAT. |
well by the same logic doesn’t the pak Howy and m8a1 serve the same purpose as the Stuka ? Howy has gigantic barrage range while m8a1 or mayor are for more precise strikes
No, they are simply totally different kinds of unit that serve totally different purpose. You don't need to hold the line and stay in front of line permanently to maximize your output when using mobile rocket artillery, hence they don't need auto fire mode. |
OKW sim city isn't doctrinal? What fortifications exactly can they build that isn't doctrinal?
T4 like Bofors, T2 like forward assembly, ISG like mortar emplacement and mg and atg as well and you need to face multiple things like that in team game that camps at VP. |
Are you being serious? It is exactly the point of this game that one has to make strategic choices (in this case, a commander selection to counter the enemy's commander selection) in order to win. If you are unwilling to make sacrifices in your own play to counter enemy builds, it most definitely IS a l2p issue.
OKW faces the exact same problem where they do not have any stock tools to reliably deal with British emplacement cancer commander and only the LeFH commander can deal with that.
Your example is not the same as USF. OKW LeFH vs cancer commander is doctrinal vs doctrinal. But USF priest vs OKW simcity is a doctrinal vs stock case. If you don't understand the difference between that, it most definitely is a l2p issue. |
Just show me a stock unit of OKW that can be a equivalent when compare to M20 while serving the same purpose. The definition of serving same purpose would be a unit with a low tech cost that can place mine has a good mg on top good speed a lot of line of sight and has a crew which has zooks. If it exists, I will be convinced
every faction has it's perks and cons is not an excuse to stop balancing. It contributes nothing that you can simply spam this useless sentences to end a discussion in every balance thread.
You get kubel for a good mg on top good speed and a lot of line of sight that serve the purpose of the recon utility of M20 and you get strum with a panzer sherck that serve the purpose of countering LV like bazooka. They are equivalent for serving those purpose. |
You being clinicly ignorant about the details of this game is on topic.
It shows that all your ideas are based on shaky logic.
So now you go personal with me and accuse me without providing any reasons or support just because you can't show the relationship between shermen performance and USF should get stock mobile artillery or not. Sounds logical and not rude. Reported. |
as USF lacks tool so does OKW, example no mortar,no reliable at infantry, no smoke other than isg, etc
every faction has it's perks and cons
No, you don't need the exact same tool when there is equivalent that can serve the same purpose. Reliable or not is performance issue which is another topic that you can simply start another thread to complain about it.
Just show me a stock unit of USF that can be a equivalent when compare to stuka while serving the same purpose. The definition of serving same purpose would be a unit with a powerful barrage that can deal a lot of output in a short time to an area without the need to holding the line and is devastating enough to kill a team weapon with a salvo if it hits while keeping itself in a relatively safe distance which can't be return fire by mortars. If it exists, I will be convinced
every faction has it's perks and cons is not an excuse to stop balancing. It contributes nothing that you can simply spam this useless sentences to end a discussion in every balance thread. |
no it's not u said "So, to bring USF inline with OKW, Its time to turn Priest/Calliope into a stock unit in T4, or even T3 which fits the timing when stuka arrive (You think it is stupid? so stuka has been that stupid for many years) and replace the doctrinal priest/Calliope with the 105mm howitzer in COH1 which can use the model of ML152 anyway. "
so that means that PROKW is too strong right now and u tested it, and want the same power for usf, fact is u have to prove OKW is too strong, or are u like the flat-earther "nah u have to prove the planet is round even thought it's already established fact with scientific proof, not us that want to make the change to flat"
The win rate of a single player means nothing statistically. You also can't deduce a single unit is OP by looking at win rate only. This simply illustrate you have no understanding about game balancing.
Moreover, I am not even saying the stat of Stuka is OP or not. It is just too good to have whatever you need in stock. In ideal situation, this should be able to be shown by comparing the use rate, win rate and K/D ratio between stuka and priest and calliope in team game. |
go ahead and show use 100 replays were u always win if they are so op
You are off topic again. |
This thread has nothing to do with balance.
It a simply case of the grass in greener on the other side of the fence. Pls lock or move to lobby.
Balance is not just about unit stats. Strategic options allowance of a faction do matters. That's why they give USF a mortar when they nerf rifles. |
Hong Kong
![[BoB]MaiTian flag](/images/replay/soviets_flag.jpg)
Relic Entertainment
