Profile of achpawel

mmkay... can conscripts get a grenade thats better than the molotov? can we also have the 30% dps buff out of cover? can conscripts bleed less? can conscripts get a longer range faust? can conscripts do more base dps?

sometimes we look at the disadvantages of a unit and not see how its advantages balance it out with other units...

Well, they have oorah (super cool), build sandbags, have molotovs, have at nade, have the possibility to upgrade to 7 man squads, they also are 6 man and can crew abandoned weapons more easily plus merge with other squads (such as, for example, engineers making their flame ugrade almost nonretreatable) - all this is non doctrine (that's more abilities compared to grens)

With doctrines they can get ptrs, more powerful at nades with the cloak ability to surprise vehicles; they can repair vehicles (super powerful when you have 3+ vehilcles), they get ppsh and the ability to hit the dirt. All very useful and probably I've forgotten about some abilities. In my opinion, all those utilities add up and may win you the game if used right. Grens, contrary to what is written in their game decription, have fewer abilities than cons and are easier to wipe. It makes perfect sense to finally do sth abut it - I'd add more abilities to grens rather than buff g43s, for example.

Grens should build cover like volks, cons, sections or most often rifles. They should have some more abilities through commanders, similarily to allies. Mines, close range weapons, some more varied grenades - all through spwecific commanders would provide more diversity and allow thse 4 man squads be more useful and would make the game much better.

It's sort of sad that we discuss g43 a specific commander 'upgrade'that is not even close to some cool abilities RM or sections can get through commanders.

thx

Not terrible enough to stop wiping squads on retreat. Also it wipes spread-out squads much more easily than Centaur, which can only nuke bunched up models

Don't bunch up - as allies you are much less punished for that even with ostwind than ostheer.

I also don't really agree. When ostwind is rushed by, for example, us infantry it has to kite them and they don't drop that many models even when they are blobbed. If they have bazookas they will effectively chase ostwind down if there is no mg supporting it.

1. Ostwind has generally weak armour for tier 3. Contary to centaur it bounces almost nothing. Looking at all AT options allies have it has to be microed really skilfully to avoid AT fire. Such skills should be rewarded by game mechanics and luckily they are.

2. Skipping tiers is risky for ost so it should be used by the allied player, if it is not then they would lose whether there is ostwind or not. Ostwind is blamed for losing but the blame should often be put on less skillful play by the allied player.

3. Actually dealing the same dmg by ostwind and centaur already favours allis as they have larger squads. To make it even one coukd say ostwind should deal more damage.

4. Armour on centaur is really strong and bounces shells quite often. Those who say it doesn't are simply wrong.

5. The speed of ostwind is not as great as some people seem to believe. I don't understand the whole argumentation saying that it can escape so quickly from trouble. Not much difference to most other tanks, especially Jackson.

Generally from my perapective ostwind is a relatively fragile tier 3 AI vehicle. It's imact on allies is similar to t70 on ost but it comes later when there should be more at options on the field. If allies invested all munitions and manpower into AI they will be in trouble. If they placed some mines and/or bought some bazookas and/or at gun and can use it/them ostwind will be dead quickly. But that seems to be the problem. Some allied players prefer blobbing infantry with AI weapons and get surprised.