Profile of Grumpy

I once made a thread similar to this one before calli got nerfed.

These were the problems I had with it.
1. Number of rocket fired in the first salvo and time between when it was fired and when they landed was too fast.lead to quick wipes with little time to respond.

2. Sound of the rockets firing was too quiet. Often couldn't hear it firing from the fog of war.

3. High HP and armor makes it super hard to kill for a unit that never even sees the front lines.

When the enemy has indirect fire you have two options. Hold out and try to dodge the salvos which is hard to do due to 1 and 2, or try to kill it before taking too many casualties which is also hard due to 3.

It is expensive and it does leave the USFs with fewer AT units on the field. This weakness however is less prevalent in team games since they can help with the AT side of things and zooks can help prevent any stug or p4 rushes.

If I were to suggest changes it would be to fix problems 1 and 2 by making it louder and have less rockets in the first salvo to allow the enemy to relocate.

It really doesn't need another nerf to performance. The time between when it fires and when it hits seems about the same as the Panzerwerfer, unless the Calliope is much closer. You probably do have a point about the sound not being as noticeable as the Panzerwerfer.

But even the Puma doesn't cover every single disadvantage of Ostheer early-game.



My point is that the choice is completely bipolar:
1) If you don't pick the doctrine, your indirect fire options are shit (i.e., on par with UKF).
2) If you pick the doctrine, you are the god of indirect fire.

Now there are two cases:
- The faction has been designed to perform well without indirect fire. This means that they should become insanely strong when they ALSO get access to Calliope (and LMGs, and tier-free AAHT). Calliope is P2W.
- The faction was shit to begin with, and absolutely needs the Calliope to perform in the late game. In this case, the Calliope doctrine is a pay-not-to-lose doctrine.

Regardless of what situation the USF was in pre-Calliope, wouldn't it be better for the game if Calliope was weaker and (if necessary) USF core became stronger/more versatile?

The pak howie is fine. The mortar in the balance preview is also okay, as is the Priest. The Calliope has to be used aggressively to be effective and ends up being another unit that needs micro in a faction that already needs a lot of micro.

The USF core is also okay, other than the 57mm AT gun should provide green cover for its crew, the reinforce cost for RE's being too high, and mines being doctrinal. The price nerf for RE's should have included mine-laying ability, especially since all factions will soon be able to make green cover.

This was a 2v2 on Moscow Outskirts. We (I as Donald Grump and random teammate) spawned north.

In short, the game was a 1+ hour slog where it felt like both players kept on the other team attacking me on our natural fuel side. My teammate would occasionally help, when he wasn't typing about how bad of a player I am. In the end, I lost 320+ models, maybe 20 full squads. We won with about 30 points left but it felt like we were losing most of the time, maybe because I was getting pummeled so much.

Here are my questions:

Some of the wipes that I had were from trying to move left and having units retreat in front of their army. Should I just give up on the left and try to get the center? Sometimes when I give up on part of a map, it feels like the game just gets worse because they easily have more of the map and work on taking the rest.

Unit composition - normally for this map I like double pak howies, but kept having them wiped by walking stukas. I thought about getting a lt and hmg's, but thought that would only feed more vet to the walking stuka's. Any suggestions on what to do differently?

Also, I didn't tech grenades on this - primarily because it didn't seem like it would do much good when on the defensive so much, but I'd be interested in hearing other people's opinion on this.

•  
  

  0

  VS

  kooh9 Donald Grump

  Von Falcon Plutarch

  review requested 2v2 on Moscow Outskirts

  by: Grumpy map: Moscow Outskirts

  1

  -

meh, i stopped using that calliope doctrine when it got that double nerf. Now it costs too much for a lesser barrage and it's on cooldown forever. if your opponent squeezes out a calliope then he isn't getting tanks for a while. that means you can make a tank and be even more aggressive since that doctrine has no mines and is very defensively oriented.

Priest is way better if you ask me when comes to cost and performance.

+1, I took it out of my 2v2 loadout in favor of Infantry. The other abilities in Tactical Support aren't that great. The strafing run is pretty lackluster, the recon run is almost the same as the Major's recon, and the muni's on the call-in HT are way too much for such a fragile vehicle.

This was a 2v2 on Moscow Outskirts. We (I as Donald Grump and random teammate) spawned north.

In short, the game was a 1+ hour slog where it felt like both players kept on the other team attacking me on our natural fuel side. My teammate would occasionally help, when he wasn't typing about how bad of a player I am. In the end, I lost 320+ models, maybe 20 full squads. We won with about 30 points left but it felt like we were losing most of the time, maybe because I was getting pummeled so much.

Here are my questions:

Some of the wipes that I had were from trying to move left and having units retreat in front of their army. Should I just give up on the left and try to get the center? Sometimes when I give up on part of a map, it feels like the game just gets worse because they easily have more of the map and work on taking the rest.

Unit composition - normally for this map I like double pak howies, but kept having them wiped by walking stukas. I thought about getting a lt and hmg's, but thought that would only feed more vet to the walking stuka's. Any suggestions on what to do differently?