|
I do think the new USF, OKW and Ostheer commanders are too strong. Soviet and UKF are just good as they are, both suffering in lategame (no heavy tanks or strong offmaps) to make up for strong early/midgame.
- fast Tiger: -> bind to CPs, until some general decisions are made plz
- Ranger: They got cheaper but are easier to kill, I do think thats okay. Triple Super Bazooka is the equivalent of double shrek (less penetration but more damage if all three penetrate). If you ask me: No more than one Shrek or two Super Bazookas on one unit ever. It shouldn't be that easy to vaporize tanks with AT infantry for either side.
- Panzerfusiliers: Only one shrek, Call-in at CP 1 (overall more potent than CP 0 Ass grens or Ass engineers because of AI and AT power) |
I’m finding that a lot of people are misinterpreting what I was saying. I was speaking about the THEME of the faction, not about the actual history.
Each faction has themes that are in general very positive themes that are not political in nature. These themes strive to delineate the factions from each other so they are distinct and interesting to play.
The USF theme is basically take all of the best parts of Fury, Saving Private Ryan, and Band of Brothers and combine them. Hence Rangers and Paratroopers with Thompsons are heavily featured but US tanks are crap except Brad Pitt in his Easy Eight.
I’m sorry you got “triggered”.
Because I'm not an english native speaker I'm not sure if triggerd was the right word, but if you take that into account I think you got what I wanted to say.
More importantly: I'm not challenging your aspect of the theme of US faction. I totally understand you there. I just don't liked that romantic glorification in that last sentence. Yes, its totally hollywood and its just not true at all. |
I don’t play a lot of team games so I guess this is where our opinions diverge, but I see rifles, assault engies, path finders, wc-51, mortar, or heck even extra REs with the new commander as being viable early game options. Depending on your definition of early game, cav rifles at 1cp come pretty early too.
With the exception of the mortar you are calling for the doctrinal units here. The mortar itself is very situational especially in teamgames. In most cases one of our team just goes Soviet T2, there you have a mortar with smoke AND recon flare. That flare is great when you want to put pressure on your opponents (and you have to do that). So the USF mortar is rarely build at all.
So lets look at the three possibilities of lategame, only the one with the Scott is non-doctrinal and thats the last appealing one. Priest and the new buffed Calliope bring a lot more unique artillery weight to the battlefield. The single Priest commander and one of the two Calliope commanders have none of this early game doctrinal units. The other Calliope commander has the upgrade for the REs. But this is very situational, its only good when you are in a cover to cover fighting situation and very bad if you get pushed. When you are pushing yourself at static positions with MGs Smoke is way better than the rifle nade. So the REs with rifle nades remain a supporting unit with use for some combat situations. |
It’s more of a comment about the “theme” of the faction rather than a comment on historical reality.
It was this comment that triggered me: "Riflemen are symbolic of the American in WWII, the average GI Joe who would leave his home, clad in olive green uniform and shouldering his M1 Rifle, to liberate the oppressed people of Europe as just one of many citizen soldiers."
I just can't stand this romantic glorification of war. There is nothing romantic about war, war always brings up the most vile sides of humanity. We don't have to talk about the many horrible crimes that were commited by the Third Reich but I heavily want to question the word liberation when we talking about heavy bombardements of cities overflowing with refugees or two atom bombs on Japan. I'm not entirely sure if I want to be liberated that way. Still it was important to bring down the Third Reich and its allies, thats out of question.
Coming back to the game: Maybe it would already be sufficent to specalize LT and Captain to have very distincitive abilities like the Major has. That could spice up the Rifleman centrism that may be historical accurate but is a bit lame regarding diverse gameplay with combined arms in a strategy computer game. |
In 1v1, the options are still wide open but in team games, they seem to get locked into spamming Jacksons and scotts to deal with heavies and team weapons.
For lategame in teamgames you have three ways to go (all of them are good at supporting the team):
spam Jackson + Scott
spam Jackson + Priest
spam Jackson + Calliope
lets reduce it to: spam Jackson + some piece of artillery
In early teamgames you go Rifleman mainly, so its the midgame only very you can get out some diversity, maybe even something unpredictable before lategame kicks in. I really do think the other factions have a little bit more diversity in early game openings as well as lategame situations.
|
That’s kinda the point and theme of USF. Special units are Doctrinal only because the US Army was made up of “Citizen Soldiers” who were all very much trained the same way to be versatile and effective fighting generalists. The specialization that complicated the German military was not present except in very specific units such as Ranger Battalions and Airborne Divisions, which are represented in game by being doctrinal units.
Adding in special non doctrinal infantry units to USF defeats its theme of regular Joes going out to do battle with the Axis forces that have been specializing for years. These same GIs just need to be equipped for the fight and they are the equal of any SS or Wehrmacht soldier who had been enslaving Europe for years under the mantle of National Socialism.
Riflemen are symbolic of the American in WWII, the average GI Joe who would leave his home, clad in olive green uniform and shouldering his M1 Rifle, to liberate the oppressed people of Europe as just one of many citizen soldiers.
Contentwise this may be right. But thats a little too much american pathos for me. |
You guys want a little bit too much. I understand that Cpt. are boring, better overwork them to get some other abilities etc.
Don't see a second stock combat infantry unit as a way to make USF op. Other factions have multiple infantry units without beeing op too. This would be a chance to end this Rifleman centrism. If I stick to my Assault Engineers example, you could define their rolls and make them different and dependent on each other. The Rifleman AT-grenade could move to the Ass engis for example. Or maybe Rifleman could only upgrade bars while Ass Engis could only upgrade bazookas and so on. There are endless possibilities for a more diverse approach. If you play vs soviets for example you can't be sure if he goes heavy con strat or builds T1 or T2 fast to bring out maxims or penals. Playing vs USF there will be... let me guess... erhhmm... yes, there will be Rifleman... and... yes... more Rifleman... yawn. |
USF gets 3 different infantry squads by teching, you want more? And the hole fraction is maybe the most powerful in early (depends on the map) because of tanktrap cover and early mortar.
Really? If you read my post carefully you will notice that I disagreed with CODGUY that the infantry clash of OKW vs USF is broken in favor of OKW. Just take your time to read it again please.
The only thing I said is, that USF infantry play is the most boring in the whole game. As CODGUY said LT and Captain are pretty much Riflemen in combat with the same upgraded weapons. In addition they are limited to 1. Major is more kind of a retreat point and recon ability than a combat unit. Another stock combat infantry unit would really add to more diverse gameplay.
Edit: Please keep in mind, that in most games you skip either LT or Captain entirely for the rest of the game. USF is the fraction with the fewest stock unit choices on the field. That still doesn't mean that they are up. It only means what it says: There are few unit choices and you will play with very few different units. |
1) Make sure similar abilities/units have the same timing across different factions (f.e. Tiger vs IS-2);
I sign that instantly.
2) Act as an artificial timing requirement for units that do not fit in anywhere else in tech (Elite Infantry, M8 Greyhound, Valentine, etc.), in conjunction with point #1;
You would find a place for these: Elite infantry for example maybe at T3. Valentine for example once you researched Bofors or AEC. Priest/Calliope at T4. Artillery emplacements buildable by engineers once T4 building is build. Only some quick thoughts, but I believe you could integrate them.
3) Act as the requirement for abilities as it's the only timing barrier available for those.
You could bind them to tech or side tech too, but for me CPs are a kind of alternative ressources that you gain even if you are behind. In addition CP gain rewards you for helping your teammates in teamgames, instead of digging in.
CP values themselves are flawed because as I said, they are disproportionate to the income gain difference between the different game modes.
I could say CPs stay always the same. The problem is that everybody gets the ressources for a fuel cache build by one player for example (even OKW which can't build caches by itself, but has salvage). The problem ist that players have abilities to tranfer fuel and so on. This mechanisms are flawed.
Although it works well enough for most abilities, ...(all the things you wrote here)... But I do understand a lot of people appear to have issues with them, so it's likely that something has to be done about it. Probably either a 100-120s build time or the hybrid tech + 8-9CPs restrictions (even though I personally don't really like the latter).
What you say surely isn't wrong. But my personal experience is another one. Up to now we spent a lot of fuel for Shermans / T-34s (both versions) / Cromwells to put pressure on our opponents. This phase will be vastly reduced if not obsolete if 2 mins later there is a rushed Tiger. Reason: You can't beat a Tiger with this medium tanks if you are playing versus equally skilled opponents. 3vs3/4vs4 maps are so crowded, with so few space left for a succesful flank, that the TD is the only reaonable counter. Heavy vehicle rush kills medium vehicle phase. I rather get my heavies later to have a more diverse game overall.
A combined requirement of tech and CPs is something I could accept too. |
Well USF has the worst early game of all factions. You start off with no effective combat units what so ever. Both Axis factions have now have their mere engineer units that can 1v1 your only fighting unit Riflemen. Its hilariously broken.
No its not broken but sooo boring. USf is the only faction with only one real combat stock infantry. Even brits have somewhat useful engineers at close ranges and with AT Snare they got even more important. So you can say they have a second combat infantry unit. On top of that they have a sniper.
Moving a unit like Assault Engineers somewhere in the USF stock tech structure would be so delighting. USF just needs a few options for the sake of diversity. |
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
