Profile of Silencer

Jump back to quoted post20 Aug 2015, 06:04 AMNorthWeapon

Changes for OKW:
They have access to beasts like Jagdtigers, King Tigers, Panthers, Sturmtigers, Jagdpanzers, but losing them doesn't matter much because replacing them isn't too difficult. OKW shouldn't have the Soviet and Allies mentality of throwing away tanks and still managing to win.

Jump back to quoted post9 Aug 2015, 18:32 PMdaspoulos

no more like, arty needs an overhaul. Cuz currently. Both pieces are fuckin stupid.

Jump back to quoted post6 Aug 2015, 22:16 PMAerohank

Mines are great for gameplay as they allow you to actually cover your flanks. This helps to protect less mobile units such as support weapons against fast moving units like infantry and fast vehicles. It also adds the tactical dimension of baiting units into deadly traps like when you have a teller-mine covered by an AT-gun on your retreat path, ready to destroy an enemy tank that tries to cut down your men on retreat; or when you present a katysha as a juicy target for an enemy to flank, only for him to run over a well-placed mine on the flanking path and you being able to hunt it down with ease.

Without mines, flanking would be too rewarding, and mobility would have too much of an impact on unit performance.

As for the topic at hand: USF already has the anti-vehicle mine covered, but they could use some anti-infantry mines.

Jump back to quoted post6 Aug 2015, 05:33 AMBeefSurge

But once upgraded they're still the most broken infantry in the game. There's no reason that a 290 MP scouting/AI unit with a 90 muni upgrade should own a 280 MP utility unit with 120 Muni invested, at medium range. Their recon abilities also synergize ridiculously well with the JP4. And their AT rifle nade makes them somewhat viable for capping flanks. Honestly Panzerfusilier are one of the few non-Soviet things in the game that are clearly OP. (Wolverine, TWP, Ost sniper, etc.)