I'm in favour, so long as the three conditions below are met.
1 -Mirror the upgrade on the Sdfkz 251.
2- Give both halftracks higher damage and longer bursts on their main guns (being the M2 and the MG42) so that they're not useless until upgraded, and can still fulfill a combined arms role.
3- Slight speed increase to encourage using them to ferry troops.
+1,000 on the buffing of the main gun so they can actually do some DPS without needing to be upgraded. The buff of health and reinforcement upgrade for some muni's is also pretty cool. |
Sounds good apart form the gammon bomb being the same, the timer is way to low.
How is removing their cloak on the move also removing a 'challenging' unit? There is nothing challenging about commandos, they are a no brainer unit.
Add an additional .5-.75 seconds to bomb then. What I mean is it's a great tool to hunt for snipers and other support units that are well guarded by enemy MG/inf/tanks. If commandos can't stay cloaked while on the move in cover: 1st that makes no sense since they are a stealth unit just like a sniper and so should be able to stay cloaked while moving in cover and not firing. 2nd you couldn't use them offensively for raiding at all if they lose the moving cloak ability and you will be stuck using them as ambush units as they are so expensive for reinforcement that fighting along side front line troops is an MP drain.
The one change I would make to cloaking is a longer re-cloak time after firing their weapons or tossing their G bomb. That prevents abuse of firing the darting away and cloaking to prevent counter fire. It also makes sense that they wouldn't be able to re-cloak in a couple seconds like a sniper can since they are a squad of men and not 1 man (2 in case of SU).
How does that sound? |
This would represent a major nerf to the Ostheer thing as the Allied factions have far more light vehicles.
A better move would be to give them reduced received accuracy vs all AT weapons as long as they are moving which will allow you to skirt around at max range with a better chance of being missed but by constantly moving you will also be less effective yourself as you are penalized for firing while moving. This would mean that 2x AT guns isn't auto death for a T-70, 222, Luchs, M20, etc but that the 2x AT gun will still provide excellent counter-play by forcing the vehicle to stay at max range and be on the move. |
|
The best thing about the abandoned mechanic is it can punish players who make a push and get abandoned with no units around to either recrew the armor or destroy it. In that sense it serves a purpose to bring some extra risk to YOLO'ing your armor into an enemy's base to finish off units or what have you. |
After playing probably 8 matches with the British yesterday I have to say I have revised my opinion about the Firefly. I tried using it without the Tulips and well... its pretty lackluster.
-The turret rotation is indeed way too slow when combined with the sluggish nature of the tank.
-The ROF is fine when you have it sitting nicely behind another tank, but on its own it fails to actually scare anything away. Instead people just drive at the tank and its basically helpless.
-Way too expensive for what it does, better off just investing in another Churchhill.
So I would agree about ditching the tulips, making them cheaper, or just buffing the tank and making the Tulips a doctrinal thing.
Not to be a jerk but this is precisely why you don't use them on their own. Relic actually made them pretty historical as far as an RTS can be, they were used to support other armor vs heavy enemy armor. They didn't try to go off and destroy tanks independently because they lacked the heavy armor and anti infantry capabilities to do so. I love using 2 fireflies just behind my front line AT guns, Centaur and infantry to advance on the enemy. My infantry and centaur can deal with their PAK and infantry and my at Guns + massive range FF's will drive off any tank. |
I think that if commandos receive any other nerfs, they will definitely need their stealth as it is to perform for their cost. Otherwise they will have to sit idle in cover hoping an enemy walks into them, rather than stealthing around the battlefield looking for important targets. I find that to be the most fun and unique aspect of the squad, so it would be a shame to remove that if it weren't absolutely necessary.
What about simply lowering them to 4 man squad (they were small elite teams so 5 men isn't really feeling very real) and that takes care of their uber DPS right there. leave gammon the same so they can be a nasty hit and run unit and simply make them de-cloak if they ever leave cover for more than 1 second. This way you have to move carefully from cover to cover or wait in cover but IMHO, I agree with you that removing their camo abilities completely would be a shame and remove a very fun and challenging/rewarding unit. |
Agreed, either remove it from 6 pounder, or give all at guns this.
You will always have people who are bias towards one specific faction, that will never change. As to your remark about bazooka being worse in reality than a panzershreck, that is not a way to balance a game, bazooka should be as a reliable anti tank platform as the panzershreck, minus the model sniping. If the bazooka is improved to be on par with the panzerschreck, a cost increase must be made most definitely.
I don't understand why we want less light vehicle play. They already struggle to stay relevant in mid and late game...increasing AT guns ability to hit them would only shut them down that much sooner. It makes sense that light vehicles that stay on the move should have a decent chance of being missed but by staying on the move they give up the full accuracy they would have if they were staying still. As to OP, not just no but hell no. A slight buff to USF AT gun sure but not a clone of the UKF 6lb AT. |
My thoughts of 25/2 remain more or less the same.
It has however also done much to kill off the B4, which now doesn't get seen very much
That is a darn shame since counterattack has mediocre KV-1 and now the B-4 has more scatter, no precision strike (wise to remove I think) and is easily 1 shotted by planes. You can't plant it in the base to avoid off map strikes and hope to have any good fortune with hitting tanks/massed infantry due to scatter at long range. It is bad design to have an on map arty piece get wiped by a simple munitions expenditure unless A. plane dropping bombs can be shot down before it gets to arty by AA units B. it only clears the crew or severely weakens crew and removes say 70% of the gun health so the SU player has to spend time and resources to get it back up and running at full health lest he lose it to any unit that gets in range. I'm hopeful that with the supposed KV-1 upcoming buff they look at B-4 and do something to make it more viable also. |
Where is a summary of the bracket or a bracket itself for us mere mortals?  |
I was frustrated and whine against this failfish of bullcrap.
Sound like trolling, but I would just say L2Adapt. Every patch having their craziest meta (Lelic finest) anyway.
Spam a crapload of PackHowie and watch the LeiG spammer cry. 
Why? PackHowie skillwipe and pop OKW truck, just like the ML-20 before him, LeiG can't.
So your solution is to either go one specific faction (USF) or go with one of a few commanders in SU just to be able to deal with an OKW stock unit. I have had to go to load outs with at least 2 ML-20 commanders in team games due to need quality long range counters to this BS. It greatly reduces options and walls off so many commander choices which is bad design. |
United States
![[CFIS] Dartarius flag](/images/replay/okw_flag.jpg)
Relic Entertainment
