55-110 if you are gonna do the stupid convertion.
.73 not .66
Changes i would test:
-I'll rather have a more meaningful unit on the LT. Make it something a bit more different rather than just a Riflemen with sprint (on vet) and a Thompson/bar
-Make tech unlock bar/zook
-Zook still needs to be cheaper
-Reduce the fuel cost for Cpt and increase a bit the cost for LT.
I wouldn't call the entire point of OKW stupid. And every faction getting the same basic income is irrelevant because it still leaves OKW at a .66 disadvantage because they are getting less from the actual points they are capturing and holding.
I don't get the insane idea people on this forum have that OKW's fuel penalty doesn't matter because ~reasons~ and that it shouldn't be taken into account when discussing teching.
The fact that the basic trucks are 60 and advanced one is 120 puts OKW at the same level as the other factions teching cost wise, but nobody rushes T4/3 for Soviets or Ost anymore because of call in's and the fact you can coast on T1/T2. USF has no incentives not to just tech rush as fast as they can. |
As an OKW player, I can decide which I need more: munitions or fuel.
As a Soviet, Ostheer, and American player, if I don't have enough of a resource there's nothing I can do about it without a doctrine choice.
But honestly, OKW doesn't translate from 1v1s to team games without the faction design going completely bonkers. Anything that's true for OKW in 1v1s is a completely different matter for team matches. Any argument anyone makes about OKW for 1v1s will be beset by the realities of how broken they are in team games. Anything addressing team games will be complained about because OKW functions very differently in a 1v1 environment.
It's lose-lose discussing OKW's resource management design. They're largely a broken faction as a result.
Yes you can, it's called making caches. Resource conversion doesn't give you more fuel or munitions out of thin air, how much you get is entirely dependent on map control and even then the conversion isn't 100% efficient.
The Russians did with there vast array of Katushas with rockets ranging from 82mm to 300mm, on many platforms.
But I await the cherry-picking.
Okay that's great but rocket trucks are not artillery pieces. An artillery piece has a distinct definition.
Also, not everything the OKW has needs to be some big sized weapon or something. Too many of them and it tends to get stupid.
I'm looking at you King tiger/Sturmtiger/Jagdtiger.
You can never get all those together, and are you seriously hung up on the caliber of the gun? Because the caliber of a gun has little relation to it's effectiveness. Not to mention all 3 of those tanks all have different rolls.
I also believe the 15 cm Nebelwerfer 41 is what they need.
How about instead we make the ISG not shit so OKW has a good support indirect weapon and keep the Stuka as the premier OKW rocket artillery piece? OKW is missing a howitzer, and should get one.
(and before you say it yes USF is missing a rocket artillery piece and I support giving them one). |
don't fret, I hear they buffed the mortar HT, I'm sure its a beast now.
It's literally the most accurate mortar in the game and comes with white phosphorous rounds that make incendiary barrage look pathetic.
|
It's also less accurate, has no cover for the crew, needs 3 men just to be alive, and the real kicked, it has a god awful range. And when you can't retreat being a bit harder hitting is vastly less important than not getting murdered by LMG laser beams
A vet 2 gren squad can nade over half as far as it can fire.
The barrage is more respectable but has an enormous cooldown and almost no shells in the volley.
It sees use not because it is good, but because it's the only USF indirect fire with no fuel cost. And bad indirect is better than none
Uh, the LeiG can't retreat, doesn't get cover. The range on the LeiG isn't greater than the Pak either.
The barrage on the LeiG is literally useless, it's worse than the auto fire. I would rather have a barrage with a long cool down that did something than one that makes you gardening worse off.
And the AoE is everything when you need to hit something to do damage or suppress it. Iv had multiple games were the LeiG has hit right next to enemy squads and done literally no damage or suppression. |
They do have a Heavy Artillery piece.
Its called the Walking Stuka.
I didn't know the Stuka cost only manpower, required no teching, and was capable of being re-crewed once killed?
Much like "b-b-but Germans didn't use artillery" guy, do you seriously think rocket artillery=heavy artillery?
Yes, it involved lots of artillery. The vast majority of which was American not German. The Germans started with 1,600 artillery pieces, which sounds impressive until you remember that they had to abandon half of them almost immediately due to lack of ammunition and what wasn't abandoned struggled mostly couldn't keep up with the advance of the German Army. I'd respectfully suggest that you check the section labelled "the artillery arm" in the cite previously provided.
wow it's almost like a rapid advance geared towards taking as much ground as possible before favorable weather conditions was to fast for the slow moving artillery. Do I also seriously need to bring up the immense amount of artillery utilized on the Ost front as well?
There was a whole lot of battle after December 16. From Dec. 23 to January 25 (most of the battle) the Americans had 4,155 artillery pieces--more than double what the Germans started with, and much, much more than the Germans could actually bring to bear.
This can be said of literally everything ever in regards to the war, the allies had more, the germans had less. |
The pack howitzer is terrible
Don't use it.
Even the LeiG is better and that is still fairly meh.
The Pack Howitzer has way better AoE which is what you want for an artillery piece. The LeiG can hit almost right next to a squad and not deal any suppression or damage. |
Well a quick google search informs me that the word "firestorm" comes from the late 16th century, so it sure as hell doesn't come from the Wehrmacht.
As for your other claims, you might want to re-read what I wrote. First, it contained the phrase "in the ardennes." The schwere gustav was a too-expensive impractical piece of shit, and it wasn't at the ardennes. You know what else wasn't at the Ardennes? Meaningful quantities of German artillery pieces or ammunition(1). It's pretty easy to achieve radical superiority in artillery when your enemy started with less than half of the pieces that you had, then has to abandon half of those due to lack of ammunition.
Second, yes, obviously balance > history. You may have noted that the first reason I gave was balance related. That doesn't justify actually misrepresenting history in the way that OP proposes.
(1) http://www.history.army.mil/books/wwii/7-8/7-8_25.htm#p656
I missed this but how could you seriously not know that the Battle of the Bulge involved immense amounts of artillery?
On 16 December 1944, at 05:30, the Germans began the assault with a massive, 90-minute artillery barrage using 1,600 artillery pieces |
Shouldn't OKW pay for the "Free trucks" then?
OKW is paying as much as every other faction is for teching with the resource penalty. 60 fuel for t1 and t2 and 120 for T3. (adjusting for the reduced income of course).
The issue with USF is that it's cheap, non-linear, and encourages rushing instead of more methodical tactical play.
Kk, so let's make USF tech linear like ostheer,sovs too.
Yes? This is a good idea.
Do you really want fucking mirror matches that badly? There's nothing wrong with how Americans tech and get a free unit.
Mirror teching =/= mirror matches. There is absolutely something wrong with USF getting a free unit ON TOP of getting the cheapest teching.
|
I'll never understand why people feel OKW is so impacted by having reduced resource income. When you take into account the ability to convert income, it alleviates most of the impact in almost every respect.
Converting fuel income into muni income and vice versa is as much an advantage as reduced income is a disadvantage. They effectively cancel each other out.
It's not like their manpower income is reduced or anything and that's what matters in most games. (Especially since most factions are often floating a great deal of resources anyway, due to the call-in meta.)
Conversion hurts you more than it helps you. Reducing an already reduced resource to improve another gives a short term bonus but significant long term harm. The shrek is necessary to ward off medium armor rushes and converting to fuel drastically reduces the amount of shreks you can get out, as well as mines you can place and nades you can throw.
The thing with fuel and muni caches is that your turning a NON map control dependent resource IE manpower into additional map control dependent resource such as fuel. With OKW your turning a map control dependent resource into another map control dependent resource.
Pretending like the fuel income doesn't matter when it drastically reduces the amount of armor OKW can field relative to your opponent is dumb considering the point of the faction is that armor is hard to come by.
|
Give Axis demo because allies have it,, but insanity to give soviets wide arc bunkers MG and USF a heavy tank because Axis have it., I'm never a fan of these threads that just want to give one side a new toy and nothing for the other. I don't think its a hard concept that if denos go to axis as a stock unit, that stock Soviet bunkers should appear. Doubt either is to occur.
OKW doesn't have bunkers outside of a doctrine, and USF has bunkers that can shoot rifle nades at people. If you seriously think Soviets are in need of a bunker when they already have the most powerful area denial tools in the game your nuts.
Why should Axis be punished more for blobbing, and USF/Soviets less? |
HarshestWinter
![[NS] Alexander flag](/images/replay/ostheer_flag.jpg)
[NS] Alexander
![[NS] Alexander flag](/images/replay/okw_flag.jpg)
Relic Entertainment
보드카 중대 
