Switch DP-28s for PTRS on Guards.
PTRS require purchase instead.
Guards become a solid AI force. Might even be worth the excessive costs.
Your suggestion does make sense in that it would allow Guards to keep some of their "elite"-ness (by not being gimped by forced PTRS), and also their uniqueness (by being the only squad capable of picking up 4 weapons and becoming generalists)
What I'm concerned about is that if you start with 2 DPs, skip PTRS (which aren't that fantastic), and manage to pick up other LMGs from the ground, you might get a terminator squad.
You could offset that by making Guards 3-slot units and making PTRS worth worth 0.5 slots. However, even with 3 DPs, Guards become really, really scary.
|
|
DSHK badly needs nerfs, that's for sure.
On the other hand, it's not shermans themselves that are broken. It's call-ins in general. Without call-in shermans there would be no counter to call-in command panther and vice-versa.
|
Most of their dps comes from double dp. I don't think 2 mosins make such huge difference. They don't bleed if you merge (they 28 mp like grens). It's just 360 mp is kinda too much.
The mosins make some difference, but not a lot of it. The difference that PTRS does is that it displaces your DP-28's (or vice versa), making your DPS completely inconsistent. This is a severe condition also known as Tommy-thumbs.
Without PTRS rifles, double DP guards can beat Grenadiers roundly and firmly. With PTRS rifles, this becomes a derby, and Guards might end up being outbled.
|
|
The trick with guards is that PTRS is dragging their performance down. If you can, somehow, get rid of the PTRS from the squad, you can melt enemy squads at range. If you can't, well, you get bled.
|
Hi!
What happens if an ability that disables turret rotation, e.g. Target Weak Point, is used on a vehicle that has a static turret, e.g. a SU-85? Just a plain old waste of munitions or is there a hidden benefit?
Stug-G TWP does NOT disable turret rotation (despite what the graphics might trick you to believe).
Instead, it completely disables the main gun from firing at all for 15 seconds.
|
actually I think this is the scope for next patch...
There is no scope set for next patch. Also given the gravity of the issues that already afflict 1v1-through-4v4, toying with howitzers is near the very bottom of our priority list.
|
|
Guys, the crocodile has 2 flamers, one of which has never been properly parametrised and fires non-stop at insane ranges. We're aware of this. We've been aware of this for over a year now, but scope is a bitch.
Just give some QoL changes to the Crocodile to allow it to use its gun, and reduce damage/range from the flamethrower. Its damage output vs infantry/support weapons doesn't have to be that completely insane, as it is already durable.
|
Rank is not really relevant, it's an argument from authority fallacy not to mention elitist.
What maters is the validity of the ideas, there has been plenty of good stuff said here.
Basically, this.
This is not a kindergarden, here.
People want to put out their ideas when threads pop up. If an idea is good, the idea should be first considered and then scrutinised. Even a fucked up clock tells the time right twice a day.
If an idea is bad, there's no need to start asking for playercards; it's pointless. If you think an idea is seriously terrible, you can politely ignore it; everyone will.
Just like any thread, there's going to be some extremely good ideas, and some extremely bad ones.
|
Infantry Combat Tuning
The intent of these changes is to better define the strengths and weaknesses of each core unit relative to one another. We wanted to better define how each core unit should engage their perspective targets. For example, in a Grenadier vs. Riflemen match up, the Grenadiers want to maintain range. This is now a valid tactic, where in the past it was not. An integral element to this iteration is the introduction of received accuracy in place of raw damage. This was used in instances where additional fire power was not necessary in maintaining the established unit relationships. For example, Grenadier long range fire power is high enough to establish the unit’s relative relationship with other units, allowing us to increase their durability instead. As a by-product of this shift, short and mid range units should have an easier time closing in on their target.
Off the top of my head, I can think of two weapon profiles which make absolutely no sense with relation to one another:
- Conscript Mosin
vs
- Grenadier Kar98 (Volks Kar98 uses the same profile)
It's a well known fact that Vet0 Conscripts lose at all ranges to either unit in equal cover (unless RNG model drop, of course).
Can anybody in this thread guess what is the optimal range (close/far/etc) from where Conscripts trade the best vs Grenadiers (not necessarily win)? I bet that none of you can even dream of the correct answer.
|
|
The garrison meta is the unsung little brother of call-in meta. Everybody can immediately come up with 10 ideas about how to fix call-ins, or how to fix infiltration units. It's not so easy for garrison meta. If the only answer is "don't use stone buildings", why not nerf stone buildings instead, etc.
On topic:
IMO gammon bombs/bundle nades just shouldn't wipe as hard as they do.
- Keep their damage the same (so that they can harm bunkers/emplacements/etc)
- Keep their far AoE the same (so that they deal a lot of damage to squads)
- but, reduce their one-hit kill radius to that of an ordinary grenade
- Reduce bundle nade price to 40 muni
- LGB come with a longer fuse, if they are launched through camouflage
- And of course, infiltration units should come with all grenades on cooldown the moment they spawn
The squads that carry those grenades deal already good enough DPS to bleed wounded squads; you don't need an "Oh, I blinked; oh-my squad is gone now"-type of wipe to make things more complicated than they are.
|
Romeo
Mr Smith
Luciano
Mr Smith
Relic Entertainment
