No they didn't. Because USF has now good armour, rifles no longer have to own every other mainline infantry. They should have maybe nerfed volks more.
But the game is generally nicely balanced anyway. Still, there are details.
The Riflemen buff made Riflemen win harder at ranges they already won at.
If you fight them at range (which OST is very equipped to do) they're not any stronger. |
|
As UKF slowly gets reworked from the game's worst cheesefest into a normal army, the holes in its roster become more and more apparent.
The biggest one, the lack of snares, was closed a few patches ago and it had a dramatic effect on the UKF faction.
That leaves one major hole in the UKF roster: indirect fire. Without proper indirect, UKF struggles against team weapons.
Giving UKF a mortar would be the best solution, but Relic's ruled that out. So maybe we could do something with the Pyro Section?
Give a second barrage to Pyro Sections: Smoke Barrage. This barrage is free, but it triggers the global howitzer cooldown.
This serves a similar role to the full barrage of forcing a team weapon to reposition, but doesn't do any damage. It's not as effective as smoke grenades because of its slow response time and long cooldown. It'll probably be more in line with the smoke mortars can fire. |
If lavanades are an anti garrison tool, so are UKF pyro IS howitzer flare, just saying
It is. It usually destroys the garrison outright.
However, it's about as cost efficient as demo charges.
You could easily rework the Pyro Section into UKF's indirect fire unit, but at the moment it's not practical. |
|
I'm not sure extra sight would address the OP's complaint. If units are fighting at max range, they've got spotters already.
It'd be more useful to buff the sight on the spotters. Maybe you could give OST's engineer special treatment? Give it extra sight no other engineer has to make it a good spotter for HMGs, team weapons and tanks?
hang on a second |
|
Sander's actually right, turns out.
The Jagdpanzer IV deals more damage per second per point of fuel than the Panther against every target in the game.
It's also outright superior against anything below 200 armour at all levels of veterancy. |
Does the price of the Tiger includes the BP3 upgrade? Is suddenly Tiger more expensive than IS-2?
One can make the same claim, one techs to T4 to get IS-2 now the IS-2 cost 880 and 320
The price of the Tiger includes BP3 if you'd stay in T3 otherwise.
Same goes for Soviet: if you otherwise planned to stay in T3 for some reason, an IS-2 would set you back 880 MP 320 FU. |
Both units have tech now taking into account only "hammer" cost and damping all the cost in the production of single vehicles is simply misleading especially since the vehicle is not even limited to one.
In addition "hammer" provides Hammer trucking, Gammon bombs and "warspeed" and it actually one of the most cost efficient tech (and not exactly a side tech).
You tech Hammer to get the Comet.
If you don't want the Comet, you usually don't tech Hammer. You put the 225 FU into more Cromwells and Centaurs or go Anvil for the Churchill.
The exact same thing happened with Ostheer T2 last patch: if you wanted a 222 you had to build T2. T2 cost an extra 200 MP 20 FU.
If you didn't want a 222, the new teching position of PGrens meant you didn't have to build T2.
So people didn't.
Nobody wanted to pay 400 MP 50 FU for a Scout Car. |
The standing of a premium medium should primarily compared against its own factions standard medium, it overcomes the problems of each faction having different traits.
Then every USF medium will be considered lacking because the basic M4 is a generalist tank and an anti-infantry tank bundled together.
The Panzer IV is considered a good AI unit, and the M4C and E8 are on par with it. I don't think it's fair to consider them lackluster just because the faction has an incredible AI tank too.
That is a bit of an exaggeration, the price of of Comet is 480/175 while the price of the IS-2 is 640/230
And the sidetech to unlock it is 200 MP 50 FU. |
Sure, increase 1.5x the range of the mortar pit and give it 0.75x the rate of fire, then limit it to only one on the field and give it a bit more durability and better brace.
Doesn’t have to be a mortar like everyone else, the pit can be the solution if it’s tuned appropriately.
That'd only be suitable for laney 2v2s and 4v4s.
Emplacements have the fundamental problem of not being able to retreat. That means any lost engagement at the emplacement means a lost emplacement.
There are only two types of fighting emplacement that work well in this game.
- Easily destroyed, dirt cheap emplacements you can afford to lose because you will regularly.
- Emplacements that don't contest territory. It doesn't matter if this emplacements are tough because you can win the game without taking them out.
The mortar pit just doesn't work well as a design, and no amount of buffing will fix that. |
Comet AI is ok, wouldn't say it's great but that's a general brit thing
And E8 same thing. Just cause it will hit doesn't mean much if it's not spreading the damage around. It's primarily an AT tank (only non Pershing usf tank that will be bouncing shells and great pen, but it's not like a t34/85 where it's just a better standard medium) it's AI isn't a reliably stand out feature is what I mean. Compare to the m4 for example...
The Easy Eight has better AI than the Cromwell. It's comparable to the Panzer IV's.
The stock Sherman isn't a good AI benchmark because it has HE shells, which double the AoE of its main gun.
It's more in the Centaur and Ostwind's league than the Panzer IV's. |
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
