Don't get 3 next time.
In a 1vs1 I never would do that, I can't imagine to build more than one. As I said because of manpower cost. But you see a lot of rocket launcher spam lately in multiplayer modes, which can work out if you have good mates. In addition I wanted to fire with multiple land matress at an OKW truck. I did this once today, firing with three at max range at a truck and not destroying it by doing so, but killed three infantry squads standing next to the truck. |
|
Okay I played 7 3vs3 games now with the new land matress commander, 4 yesterday before damage versus buildings was reduced and AOE was slightly lowered, 3 today. I always went heavy for them (2-3 units) to test their performance in a normal game situation.
The good:
- their damage versus blobs is very strong, squad wipes happen
- can be recrewed if not destroyed entirely
- low fuel cost
The medicore:
- their range seems to be not that huge as others stated here, for such a slow rocket launcher it is pretty medicore
- their damage vs OKW trucks is okay now, you need multiple salvos at once (otherwise the truck is repaired again)
- in teamgames where ressource income is higher walking stuka can arrive long before matress can be called
The bad:
- because of long and slow firing salvo + setup/dismount time it is very prone to counterfire from other rocket artillery like walking stuka and painwerfer and some offmap area attacks
- falls excel versus them on maps with lots of ambient buildings
- quickly mowed down by any kind of infantry/vehicle counterattack if not guarded properly, to slow to evade by itself
- slow in reaching firing position
- can be stolen and turned versus you (happend twice to me)
- manpower heavy
- doctrinal, comes with a commander without any kind of offmap attack or late game abilities/units
Conclusion:
They truly shine as a blob counter and at attacking a forward build healing truck after a mass retreat. This isn't such a bad thing, because blobbing should be punished and FRP mechanic is bs in team games anyway.
On the other side they drain your manpower even more. With brits having most expensive base infantry unit, most expensive MG and most expensive AT-Gun plus mortar pit for 400mp, Forward Assembly and the doctrinal 4 men commandos for 400mp, you truly have to make some decisions if you decide to take this commander. The land matress has a unfavorable ratio of manpower to fuel. Manpower will really limit your decisions if you take this commander, there is so many you want to afford, you seem to be always low on population unless you are really kicking ass from the beginning.
I lost three games, always to tanks, this is the real weak spot of the commander. In arranged teams it can work out, but you have to make sure that your mates will care for the construction of caches and for enough AT power. You are heavily delayed in producing Cromwell/Firefly. Again I think manpower is more of a problem than fuel. So I wouldn't rate it too high, other commanders have good abilities/units too that can decide a game and are not that manpower starved. Sure it would be a total different thing if it would be non-doctrinal like walking stuka or painwerfer.
|
Putting 2-3 building somewhere and pressing a single button every 90 sec is not as hard as pulling of a flank with multiple tanks and infantry units.
This is true. But moving a Panther/Tiger/KT/JT frontally in, firing a few shoots and drawing it out before it gets destroyed is not as hard as pulling off a flank with multiple tanks (M10/T34...) and infantry units (bazooka) to nail that german high armor/health tank. ;-)
You see what I want to say? Until the brits were released allies had to flank much more when it came to armor battles (with all risks: mines/AT-Guns/Shreks). So be generous and grant something to the Allies that is easy to use too. It is just easy, so its a difference in micro, thats right. But it is not unbeatable. |
I did laugh so it was definitely funny for me.
Although Funny how you can play games which tries to Reflect a real conflict were 50 Million real people died, and your having fun playing that ? You gross Psychopath
But beeing offened by a non gore edited historic Photography
If it broke a rule it will deleted surely
If you don't see the difference between a game where pixel soldiers get "killed" and depictions of real happenings (like a historical photo) I can't help you. It wasn't about breaking rules of the forum but morale borderlines. I won't annoy you anymore, just go on with your live and laugh at stuff like that. |
Yes indeed. Its a very famous and sad picture of childrens after a napalm strike of the US-airforce.
I have a Black Humor and it fits so nicely since it represents the Situation of brits - axis perfectly for the last Weeks and prob for the next ones too :'D
Sorry, but this is really not funny at all. Its just bad taste making fun out of real suffering of other people. |
Lol at people who cry about people crying about New units but cried over New units already themselves (*cough*New 222*cough*)
I'm not involved at least. As I said business as usual and this goes to both sides. |
I think discussing newly added units on coh2.org is buisness as usual yes.
Don't looks like the op wanted to discuss the unit, imo he called for a damage/scatter nerf.
What I wanted to say: Of course new units are not always balanced perfectly when they hit the game, but give it some time at least to try some diverse counterplay. I myself don't played with/versus it up to now but I'll change this soon. If I put aside the damage for a moment land matress seems to be the most vulnerable and slowest moving of all rocket artillery pieces, so it should be a primary target for units emerging from ambient buildings, offmap attacks and onmap artillery pieces. I can think of diverse counterplay, so lets try this please. Of course blobbing as usual isn't a counter. And if you ask me I really appreciate every unit that punishs blobbing and hurts FRPs because blobbing is bs anyway and FRPs give such a huge advance in infantry play on most big maps especially in the bigger game modes I like to play (I would be enough if all this FRP units/structures would just heal and reinforce without being a retreat point, that would be okay). |
here's what I propose:
firefly cost lowered to 350 mp 125 fuel 12 pop
tulip upgrade cost lowered to 30
tulip rocket cost lowered to 60
tulip rockets changed to 2x100.
Don't like the concept that all armor the allies have is more spammable and inferior to axis side. I like the fact that brits don't have spammable tanks but tanks that can go toe-to-toe with axis tanks. They already went the wrong way with Churchills by toning done armor and health. They should have bring the fuel cost over 200 instead and leave it like it was. |
|
A valid point, but don' forget how much worse the Firefly would be without Tulips for its fuel cost of 155 (reload time wtf?). And of course you do not get guaranted hits. For a initial investion of 100mun and and further 100mun for each salvo I often saw the tulips firing right over tanks or hitting the ground before reaching the tank. Because of the delay between activating the ability and firing first/second missile you often miss if your opponent is moving his tank in an intelligent way. So this has to be taken into account. |
woke up in the morning - check 
patch live for a few hours - check
users played a couple of games with/versus new commanders - check
found first thread about new units beeing op - check
Conclusion: Business as usual  |
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
