CB had an improved AOE damage profile that meant that the target gun was more likely to have crew knocked out in a hit rather than crew injured, and fewer hits overall to take the gun itself out.
Didn't think it was that significant. Iirc the kill radius was only like .2 or .3 larger in size. It definitely didn't hurt, but it's not a huge deal
Howitzers aren't supposed to reliably counter each other anyway. They CAN, but reliable counters are the off-maps. Which work just as well against B4 as anything else, regardless of how silly it is rn
A b4 "one-shotting" a lefh sounds like something that can only be common when there's several B4s. If they are limited to 1 (among other changes) I feel like RNG should still keep that rare
I think if they were to cost population it might be nice if you can salvage them for a minor refund, or at the very least just scuttle them for no refund, otherwise you might well have population sitting on the field you have no way to recover. The former is more in-line with how UKF emplacement works, I believe.
Wouldn't be that bad if they left in Counter Barrage but they removed Counter Barrage while making the B4 1 shot your LEFH.
Counter barrage did literally nothing to help you against a B4. You just call a barrage on it. It doesn't change firing positions, there was no reason to use CB against the B4/ML20
I might agree that Bunkers should cost population, but the difference in strength between OST and USF "bunkers" isnt something I think you can totally fairly compare directly.
They're on very different factions, USF being a very "aggressive" faction, and OST being a very "defensive" one, which not to mention the utility of the Rifle Grenades.
I honestly always found it a bit strange that USF have the Fighting Position at all, while SOV and especially UKF do not. UKF in particular is a much more "defensive" faction in design. Is there some design goal here I'm missing?
I assume the reasoning for that is that USFs hmg is the least accessible. It's not as true anymore but at launch it was locked behind a 50 fuel officer. That's my assumption just because I have no idea why else they would get FPs, doesn't fit their theme as you said
That works both ways though. Like it's kinda weird to me that Ost has bunkers when they already have by far the best hmg, and it's available in their HQ. Sure it's in their theme, but it's a little redundant
How am I suppose interpret this anything other way than you having double standards for allies and axis.
Stop projecting yourself on to other people. Given that you're this upset about his minor suggestion, it's pretty clear that you're the one having double standards
You've barely even addressed the topic in your ridiculous ranting. There's no reason bunkers and FPs shouldn't cost pop
If you have a problem with emplacements (which cost pop....) then make a thread about them. I look forward to reading it
Maybe I used wrong words, Soviets can have AT infantry - that's fine by me. However, it's all about the timing, the cost, the effectiveness and durability of the PTRS squad.
And what's wrong with the timing? Ptrs have low damage and penetration but with higher ROF compared to other handheld AT. That makes them strong against lights, which they need to be. If you go T1 you don't have an AT gun
On another note, I still say the whole CB saga was much overblown but it is what it is, will have to agree to disagree.
It was "overblown" because people waited years for them to do something about it. People have been complaining about CB for a very long time
Look no further than the old veterancy bug story if you think a bug going unnoticed for a while means it's not an issue
The style of CB was the problem not it's power. Auto-pilot abilities aren't fun (don't get me started about loiters). With the B4 it's clearly a power issue. I don't think people object to the existence of a barrage, they object to it's potency
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
