I'd rather them attack the reasons its so potent. Either tone down the vehicle, which is questionable currently, or make allied AT guns more accessible for USF and give UKF snares. Soveiets have had the easier time vs the luchs with cons being meta and with that often t2 coming out.
Is it that good though? I've seen replays of top players that dared to go Luchs and it doesn't seem to be that potent tbh, except maybe vs UKF, but even then, it seems to take forever to kill anything if you sit at max range with it. |
the old build time was 40 seconds, same as the t70 currently. The repair pioneer upgrade take 25 seconds to build.
If we revert the panzer 2 build time to 40 seconds, but lock it behind the repair pioneer upgrade, that's 65 seconds.
You delay the panzer 2 without having to penalize the 2nd, 3rd panzer 2.
It's not that simple since the repair pioneers also cost fuel (15 I think?) so you're delaying the luchs even further.
Assume you have enough fuel at moment t0 (after the mech HQ is already built since you're unlikely to have the HQ ready and enough fuel for the luchs at the same time) to get a luchs, but now you need to research repair first. That sets you back 15 fuel which, in order to get back within the 25 seconds it takes for the upgrade to complete would require you to have a fuel income of 36 f/min, which is completely unrealistic. Assuming a more realistic 20 f/min income, you'd need 45 seconds to get 15 fuel back. So in actual fact you need 45 + 40 = 85 seconds to get the luchs in this scenario. |
There is nothing wrong with spios.
And this guy is top 100, top 150 with every faction. Can't even trust playercards anymore. |
how about upcoming sbp ppsh cons then? +it is doctrine weapon
That ppsh change is stupid and hopefully will get dropped. |
|
So now you want them to suck both at long and at short range? They are 300mp and very squishy. Sure, they can catch you off-guard, but if you see them coming they are just mp bleed for your opponent. |
|
So I've probably faced this guy like 10 times in automatch now, lost every time to the same tactic.
He goes cons, 2-3 maxims, 1-2 mortars, a Zis-3 then camps 2 VPs and a fuel and stalls for T34-85s. Tactical engagements aside, how to deal with this from a build perspective?
I've been going med HQ into flak HQ but I seem to lose the VP game this way. I've been thinking to go Mech HQ and surprise his initial maxims with a Luchs and maybe a stuka, then go Med HQ for healing and then go for a command panther for the end game.
I'll post a replay next time I run into this. Any thoughts? |
|
So I keep bouncing between rank 300-500 with OKW and can't seem to break below 300 no matter what.
From my own assessment it looks like I need to take my unit micro to the next level. It's not so much an issue of reaction speed, I'm pretty good with that, but rather I seem to be unable to figure out when a squad needs to retreat before getting wiped. I seem to keep squads in a fight for 1 second too long hoping to cause my opponent more bleed, which leads to unnecessary wipes, especially in the early game where I like to keep pressure on my opponent with infantry while the kubel caps around. Losing a Sturm squad very early on is basically GG since the kubel also becomes useless without repairs.
Any tips? |
How do you disallow someone from considering someone else's opinion?
By saying "This player sucks don't listen to him"?. And it's not about disallowing someone else from considering opinions it's about you yourself not listening to them. |
When someone says they're "entitled to an opinion" what are they actually saying?
I mean they are allowed to have their opinion considered. Obviously they're allowed to express it. |
In real life this is called a strawman argument and is a well-known logical fallacy.
A strawman argument is when you create the opposing argument you disprove. You're thinking of ad hominem.
A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent.
It probably falls under both actually, depending how you classify "player A is not entitled to have an opinion because player A is not a highly ranked player". It is both an attack on the person's credibility, as well as a refutal of the "Player A is entitled to an opinion" argument, which is not what is being discussed. |
CartoonVillain
Stoned_Killer
Relic Entertainment
보드카 중대 
