Implying that the other factions doesnt require micro to play well?...
Ost is pretty much the best well rounded designed faction, and highly rewards great micro, and the faction itself has a wonderfull synergy between the units in each tier.
From the guy mainly playing allies, must be really easy to justify each win with "ohh the enemy did not micro good enough but my rifleblob is totally ok". Yes Ost can be rewarding but mainly due to the fact that every single one of your units are so underpowered that every win feels like a miracle. |
Good job OP (And subsequent people using the weekly charts as proof) for failing to take into account the skewer that USF combined arms may have caused to the win rates of axis factions.
More time is needed to really see the impact of the patch on the game.
The chart was always handy when it came to show axis dominance immediatly after every balance update which brought us to this point. I argued before that the chart is useless because top 200 micro is well beyond anyone that usually posts here and is not representative of the whole community. The more interesting stats to me are playernumbers which are droping rapidly since March.
Now we have overperforming allied infantry into overperforming allied tanks while both axis factions STILL have not a single unit with any shockvalue (maybe luchs but one rarely has to mapcontrol for that). |
Idea of "increasing Ost squads survivability" is good, surely. But... if that will be done, I think, we will also need to get weapon upgrades for Conscripts, like DP-28s or SVTs or something like that.
Such as low firepower of conscripts is their weakness, compensated by survivability, low survivability of Ost squads is their weakness, compensated by serious firepower (good accuracy, weapon upgrades...). If you gonna "heal" weakness of 1 type of infantry - don't forget to heal another similar mainline infantry kind, which also should be healed after that for purpouses of balance.
Anyway, I would agree with that NCO or whatever else kind of making Ost squads live longer, but only in package with firepower upgrades for soviet Cons. It might be weapons, it might be something, that increasing their shitty accuracy and low fire rate... Whatever.
P.S. Since we talk about squad increasing - I don't understand why 4 men tommy squad costs 280 MP, but 5 men suqad costs... 280 MP? Guess it should cost at least 40 MP more! And anyway, that increasing squad ability for UK is OP. Their infantry is powerful enough, getiing bonuses from cover, have wide weaponary... and can be squad increased. I don't see any reason, why they deserve to have such thing, really.
Why is it that anytime someone mentions upping the survivability (not damage) of Ost units the allied bandwagon jumps on the "buff conscripts"-wagon? |
Read the entire original post.
The 50 cal should be a semi-hard counter to 222s and luchs. This solves the LT balance problem. It shouldn't be devastating either, of course
You wrote: The Op wants the 50Cal to deny parts of the map to light infantry when the original post makes no mention in regards to its performance against AI only stating its lack of performance in AT.
You also wrote: If USF wants better support weapons the only choice is to make terminators less good. So take away Rifles AT nate and we can talk about a vehicle "killer" mg and followed it up in your most recent post by saying: Also I did not suggest taking away Rifles AT nates because I think the current 50 cal is fine.
I cannot follow all the contradictions.
The 50 cal should be a semi-hard counter to 222s and luchs. (From the OP)
Yeah semi-hard counters only "deter" (to put it into your words) their intended counters. You read the deter part into the OP because you wanted to but the OP post can be understood quite differently.
Me suggesting to take away terminators AT nates is just to make people aware that USF already has AT options even if they go Lt so it is by NO means a contradiction and also I dont want to change the 50Cal and therefor I dont WANT to take away terminators AT nates (you have a hard time wraping your mind around that idea). I am just saying IF it gets changed then you have to account for the ripple effects of that change. |
The OP wants the 50 cal to be able to deter LV's because a certain tier at the moment has no AT options. Deter being the key word here. Your suggestion makes no sense of taking away the AT nades from riflemen, it would be the same as take away the faust from the OH grenadiers because the MG42 has the AT rounds at Vet1 but worse because you also have mines without the need for picking a commander.
Yeah no, the title says "50 cal should be a vehicle killer". Also I did not suggest taking away Rifles AT nates because I think the current 50 cal is fine. So you are the one making no sense here. |
How is this suggestion related to Riflemen? The purpose of this thread is to buff the supposedly under-used 50cal and to address the LT tier's lack of AT weaponry since it is also supposedly underused. Surely Riflemen would be entirely unchanged by this?
I'm sorry if I'm missing something obvious, I don't really play USF. 
No unit exists in a vacuum, if you change one unit you change other units indirectly. So no this is very much related to riflemen because they are the core unit of USF. This is especially true for infantry SUPPORT weapons like mgs which are meant to stay behind your frontline and support your fighting squads. USF allready has free AT nades (Terminators vet insanely fast because they wreck evrything).
The Op wants the 50Cal to deny parts of the map to light infantry which is not necessary because terminators already do that. USF is not supposed to dig in, they are designed to be a mobile army and therefor current 50Cal is fine. If USF wants better support weapons the only choice is to make terminators less good. So take away Rifles AT nate and we can talk about a vehicle "killer" mg. |
The issue with that line of thinking is that the .50 is locked behind an optional tier of tech. Since USF tech is designed under the assumption that the player will skip either LT or Captain tier it means the player won't have access to the .50 half of the time. In turn you cannot balance a core unit based on the assumption that the .50 will always be present.
Think about it a different way. If the USF player went LT tier for a .50 then no pack howie is likely to make an appearance unless he delays his armor significantly. That itself is enough trade-off for a functional .50 imo.
The shock value of the M20 is already enough of a reason to go for Lt, no need to make the other unlocks even better. Also no unit exists in a vacuum. Rif... Terminators already wreck any other infantry from the moment they hit the field. No need to give USF more options to look down parts of the map. They are also designed to be a mobile army, so the current 50cal is fine and fills its intended role. It is a decent unit for a decent price. If you want BETTER AT go Captain. |
|
Good suggestion, but only if we nerf Rifles in the process. You cant have the cake AND eat it. |
They didn't do it when they thought infantry vet was valuable already anyway, so I wouldn't expect much.
*Sherman HE wipes an Ober squad in one-hit*
*Panzerschreck one-shots a Rifle squad hugging them*
You tell me what is more likely... yeah do not answer I know the answer. |
|
Why does my unsupported MG not hold an entire flank all by itself? It is a SUPPORT weapon meant to SUPPORT your infantry not go ham all by itself. The fact that people can pull (quite easily) of builds consisting mostly of maxims tells me the problem here is in front of the monitor not the game. Also shrecks arguably snipe models not as reliable as zooks do, but not in any way as consistent as you claim. Volks with shrecks lose dps vs infantry iirc. |
Rudog999
cel.metsu
Relic Entertainment
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
