|
Does anyone know the effective range of Brens vs. Lee Enfields? At max range, do standard rifles do more damage than Brens, or are Brens a straight upgrade at every range? |
I wouldn't say having Pak40 penetration with better reload speed to be something you could characterize as "sucking". The 6-pounder is very good.
I didn't get to play Brits online because of the player numbers, so maybe my reasoning on this is because of AI hacks. I swear the AI has new tank health cheats. This might have something to do with my reasoning. It barely does any damage. |
I have pretty much the exact same thoughts as I did in the alpha (since not a whole lot seems to have changed since three months ago). Their late game is pretty good, but their early and even mid game is shit tier. They're basically like the Americans, except without mobility, good harrassment options, or cheap units. Their HMG is is decent, but its cost really compounds with the cost of everything else. They have no light, mobile artillery. They have no smoke to avoid MGs outside of a fragile emplacement, which, by the way, Relic removed the light and white phosphorous shells. WTF? Their first and second tier buildings feel extremely limited. It feels like there's this giant whole in their tech. Taking the map is basically impossible. You have to just pick one corner of the map and sit there until late game, unless your opponent just sucks. Even late game it's difficult if emplacements are eating up a huge bulk of your popcap. You really need to be able to deconstruct and rebuild emplacements, even if it's an upgrade you unlock at tier 3.
The 6-pounder AT gun sucks. Its arc is too narrow and it has no special ability as far as actual offensive power is concerned. Brits have no vehicle snares, so keeping tanks inside your AT gun arc is hard. Also, is it just me, or are all the tanks taking a lot more damage now? I'm really noticing this against the AI particularly. Is this some new AI cheat?  I shoot something with a Firefly and only like 1/6 of their health depletes, if that. Emplacements are too expensive for how fragile they are, which is something I thought Relic would've fixed in the months they've had to do something about it.
I've been playing Axis against them because of the search numbers, so this is coming from the Axis perspective, too. OKW has a hard time dealing with Bren carriers that kill your kubels, so you can't suppress their Tommy blob. Beyond that, Ostheer shits all over the British. I switched to Ost and just dumped on Brit players. There's very little they can do.
Overall, I think the Brits suck. |
If that happens, Allies have played bad and deserve to fight harder. This goes both ways, if Allies can get a foothold, Axis should fight harder to get terrain back. Or do you think otherwise? (sincere no salt here)
Yeah so? This is how it goes in 1v1s and 2v2s as well. How is this suddenly unfair for Allies? They have their advantage early game and the Axis have it late game. You can even argue that Soviets can pretty much deal with Axis late game. If Axis get beaten early game it is fine, but if Axis play well and camp it out and get their better later game units, it suddenly is unfair and favored towards Axis? How so?
I see your point here. But again this goes both ways, if there aren't 4 Schwerer Panzer HQs in a 1v1, there sure as hell aren't 4 M5 Quads or m20s there.
Axis can put a single defensive structure on every point on the map in a 1v1, but they would be foolish to do so since building nothing but mg bunkers and mg42/mg34s will surely make you lose (not to talk about the mp cost). 4v4 maps are big, I doubt every point in the Axis held territory will have a defensive structure, the exaggeration is real.
"Axis are better for camping and defending and Allies need to coordinate their attacks to break a tactic that just requires being Axis" You are totally right, Ostheer was designed to play more defensively. OKW however was not, yet their infantry swarms can defend good by their own. But again, if you have 4 Soviets, you have 4 players who can build Katties. If you have 4 soviets, you can have 1-4 ml20s. If you have USF in your team, you can have Priests. All of these can deal with camping Axis just fine.
To add to this, if you have 4 Soviets, you can have 4 players with maxims, who can spam the field full of them. If these players go into zis wall into mortars into Heavy tanks, you can bet your ass Axis will have problems.
Pls, everything goes both ways, just see it.
I've fought some very good Axis players and felt I deserved to lose those games. It's just a matter of certain factions being more powerful in certain phases of the game, that's all. In team games- in any strategy game I've ever played- the "late game factions" always perform better in team games. It's just the way it is, and there's really no easy fix for it. See: how awful Zerg are in big team games in SC2. This isn't unique to Company of Heroes.
Don't get me wrong, none of what I'm saying is emotional complaining and bitching. It's just how the game tends to play out. I don't really see how anyone could disagree that Axis have an advantage in team games; the only thing that's really debatable is how big that advantage actually is. The only actual problem I have with it is the ease of strategies versus their counters. OKW, for example, can nullify minute-long retreat paths on large maps just by having OKW tech. They also get a free, high health tech building that they get for essentially free. This is all well and good, it's just the the amount of coordinated effort it takes to counter something that's so easy to do. That's my only real problem with it. Countering four admittedly OP (like they're going to stay that way for long) Quad halftracks takes considerably less effort than toppling the Axis fortress of doom on large maps. You just need to catch them out of position once and they're done for, even if they are too strong at the moment.
If Axis fights really hard to take the map back from Allies through sheer skill, coordination, and tactical maneuvers, that's great. I just hate those games where they're allowed to sit there with PaK 43s behind buildings that block Katyusha rockets, Elefants, bunkers, MGs in buildings, and they just win because the VPs drain before you get a chance to take the map back. We've all been there. I've done it as Axis and feel like my opponents are helpless after a certain point. This isn't just me complaining about losing.
|
Yeah because maxim spam into at guns into m5 quad into call ins can't defend any territory.
Of course it can, in the early game especially (which is, you know, not at all what I'm talking about).
It seems you have never played a 4v4 in your life. Coordinated attacks in a 4v4, my my you must have had some rare games? Axis don't need to communicate, woah what a team, next level tactics here?!
You are acting like Allies need some high level math and next level tactics to even capture as much as one vp or a fuel point. They don't. Allied early game can overwhelm Axis if played right, especially in 4v4.
I don't really know why you're being so salty (then again, typical for this forum so why am I surprised), but you are really missing the point completely. The points I made are for when Axis already has a foothold on the map. Allies can definitely overwhelm Axis early game. No question about it. I'm specifically talking about when the mid game hits and Axis has their defenses up on the crucial points. If that happens, Allies have to fight triple as hard to even stay even. If Allies don't win in the first 8-10 minutes, they're going to have a really hard time just because of the way Axis works.
I think the problem here is that you are looking at this from a slightly bias way. Axis can camp very well, so can allies, especially soviets. The only problem is that camping for Allies means that they are wasting time with camping and letting their opponents get their strong late game armor out. Axis don't insta win if they camp one spot. Perhaps they do in your mind, which gives them a psychological edge above you and your team.
Again, you're totally missing my point. Granted, I do usually play Allies since it's easier to find a match, but I've played Axis plenty of times and the same thing happens. You either get overrun early, or you get to to establish a foothold on the map and just camp into victory. Obviously there are exceptions, but that's generally what happens.
In response to the part I bolded, that's my point exactly that you apparently missed. I'm not talking about camping one spot. I'm talking about their entire half of the map (though the efficacy of this is tied to which map you're playing, naturally). That's why Axis doesn't insta-win in 1v1 or even 2v2. They can't put their defenses up on every single point on the damn map. There aren't 3 or 4 separate Schwerer Panzer HQs to contend with on each fuel and 2/3 of the VPs. Breaking through two+ camping Axis players without your teammates helping you is impossible, because those defenses are only really breakable with an equal or greater force strategizing around them, and since a lot of big team game players aren't good, this exacerbates the Axis win rates because Allies have to coordinate to break a tactic that just requires being Axis. |
|
People can keep complaining about cache sharing, but that isn't the biggest problem. A huge factor for Axis's favor in team games is that in, say, 1v1s, Axis can lock down a sector of the map with machine guns and the OKW flak base and medic HQ. It's up to that Axis player to then fight for the rest of the map while his defenses work in his favor on his side of the map. Allies must cover the rest of the map while constantly harassing Axis defensive positions. Obviously, this is a blanket statement, but that tends to be how a lot of games play out.
However, in team games, there are enough players to go around to cover the entire expanse of Axis's half of the map, inching up to, and often covering, the fuel and victory points. Every single crucial point on the map is covered by defenses. If Axis is allowed a foothold to set those defenses up, they basically autowin. It's possible to topple an established Axis fortress of doom (usually because of awful Axis players), but Allies have to climb up a mountain just to stay even since artillery can only do so much. The only way Allies can stay on even ground is if they never allow Axis to set up shop, because then Axis barely have to do anything until their invincible armor wave shows up. Artillery can only do so much.
Allied teams require tons of coordinated attacks while Axis is basically allowed to just sit there once their defenses and forward retreat points are up and hope the Allies aren't communicating . And naturally, they get away with it most of the time because most people who play 3v3s and 4v4s are not very good players.
It will be interesting to see how the British change this dynamic because now Allies are allowed to play Axis-style. |
Well the majority of people suck at this game and by all means it's not an easy game to play and it suffers from a ton of issues so I don't blame you.
I swear 90% of the players I've played with or against have been awful players. Only now that I'm a higher rank do people actually seem like they know how the game works. And I'm not saying that to brag about my elite skills, I'm talking about people who clearly have no idea how the game works. Like, "put all your units in one control group and A-move across the map" levels bad, and they rage at you when they lose.
And then I read balance complaints on forums, and I usually picture this type of player. |
|
If I remember correctly, the problem with the light AT mines was that after three clustered mines, you get heavy diminishing returns where adding four or more makes no difference at all. I remember reading that somewhere on this forum a while ago.
And even then, it's only, what, like a 50% chance to actually do anything even with the three mines?
|
|
For the love of God, please yes. Those mines are terrible, and I'd love to see them get reworked and put on rear echelon troops, who desperately need mines. |
I've been wanting this ever since they merged the bazooka and BAR rack unlock. On top of that, Germans get Panzerfausts and rifle grenades for free. I see no real reason Soviets have to pay 25 fuel for such a crappy "grenade."
Molotovs should just be a Vet 1 ability for cons. HAve it to were they pay to unlock a normal Nade. Nothing to good, mine you.
I actually really like this idea. |
United States
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
