|
It is truly a shame that okw lost its vanilla resource system, one of the features that made the faction so unique.
Okw right know isnt a weak faction at all, it has two fatal weaknesses tho and those are hmg spam and if it loses the first tank. Hmg spam everyone knows that is very hard to deal with specially in maps with a lot of garrisons, something that would help with hmg spam whould be if sturms had a smoke grenade instead of the useless conclusion grenade but at the same time this would make sturms carry even more weight and make them even more a vital squad and even game breaker if the sturms are lost in the early game. Regarding the tank situation... everyone knows if you lose that first tank you are pretty much f*cked because there isnt a reliable infantry based anti-tank counter. Sturms panzerschreck is, again, pretty useless against something heavier than light armor and the raketen isnt great either. Maybe doulbe panzerschrecks would make a lot more sense in sturms or in obers than in panzergrenadiers, just saying... |
|
It should have exacly the same armor and health of the stuart since it is basically a stuart with an open top turret and with a light howitzer.
To be honest I dont see the reason for usf to have a mortar, a pack howitzer and a howitzer motor carriage. It would be neat if the pack howitzer would be moved to the airborne commander instead of the at gun (maybe?) since in ww2 what gun was mostry used by paratroopers and/or the m8 scott would be moved to a armor/recon commander for the same reasons.
If the m8 scott was tied to a commander it woulnt be as annoying because you wouldnt see it as often and maybe it would make a less used commander worth the consideration. |
|
Since this is a unofficial balance mod I would really like to see how the state of the balance would be if we got rid of the "call in" mechanic. Reason being that this mechanic doesnt bring nothing good to the table, basically all call in's are a cheesy way to come back to the game and call in's are limiting the commander options we see in games. 90% of the games players choose commanders that have really strong call in's in order to not tech or to just bring a really strong unit to the match without the need to tech for it. Good examples of units that are pretty strong and aren't call in's are the t-34/85 and the sherman easy 8 (I would like to add the king tiger since in order to have access to it you need to have all tech structures but at the same time you kinda "call it in" once you have those said structures).
This is the perfect time to see how things would work. I get some people are really used to have call in's to save the game, I hope those said people just keep an open mind and give a try to this and see if the game becomes more fair and less cheesy, we might even see more variety on chosen commanders! |
I don't build emplacements at all in my normal strategy. There's just much better alternatives. I really think there should be large scale rework of emplacements, not just nerfs or limits. Limiting each to one would be fine, but I don't really get why, as spamming emplacements is kinda dumb. Also, if you changed the bofors like that, you would probably have to give it the suppression of the schwerer as well if it doesn't already have the same amount (I haven't built one bofors in like a year and I don't engage them with infantry if they aren't braced, so idek). The thing is, people seem to complain so much about noobs making simcities that carry them for a while and high level players say emplacements are bad, so why not rework them to be a supporting element, not a core element (going back to op)?
But again, I wouldn't be that mad if they all just got totally removed.
I think that relic intended that emplacements were to support your army and help to better defend your territory but they didnt think that people could lockdown certain maps with just two bofors or that they could dominate an oponent with just two mortar pits. Thats why I say that there should be a limit of one of each emplacement, this way you could build those emplacaments to defend an crucial part of the map or even defend one vp while at the same time you wouldnt be able to solely depend on those emplacements, you would need an actual army to contest the rest of the map. Alternatively if the player doest want to sacrifice mobility for OPness he can always choose to have a alternative to those emplacements like relic always intended.
Yes basically the bofors would work like the schwerer (which does a pretty good job defending cutoffs and other things). |
I'd be fine with that. And give brits a real mortar ffs.
And then what? You would have a souless faction and it would only lead to an homogenizacion of factions compositions which would lead to boring gameplay and pointless factions.
Emplacements have a place in the game as do blobs and as do so many things that give the game flavor, the problem is that these said things are broken but removing them isnt an option.
The only way I see to "fix" emplacements, as I said in previous posts, is to first reduce the rate of fire of the bofors (it must be broken, its super irrealistic) and give it the rate of fire of the schwerer then limit the player to only be able to build one emplacement of each type to force him to build an actual army to contest the rest of the map/vps. Allow the player to build more of the same emplacements if he chooses the advanced emplacement regiment commander. And at last give brits a similar option to the bofors or aec but instead the player would have to choose the mortar pit or a regular 3 inch mortar.
It is alright if emplacements are op but the problem is that they are spamable, you dont see wehr players spamming tiger ace's do you? |
just remove f BRACE ability, why we have it ? they build 3 mortar pit and easy win
Thats the biggest problem, only if they could only build one emplacement of each type (axis can only build one tiger ace or one kt or one jt and no one minds that) like I have been saying... And they also need an option instead of the mortar pit (a regular mobile 3 inch mortar, like they can choose between the bofors and the aec.
I dont mind brace and the fact that emplacements are op, the problem is that if the brit player goes for emplacements they usualy go for multiple mortar pits and bofors... |
to fix team games
I would start with few things
1) Fix aim time fore maxims
2) Remove SturmPios as first squad
3) Reduce repair speed to Sov level
4) Give leig power to clear buildings faster
5) USF mortar range 70.
This is it. It would be enough for me.
The way to fix team games is to first balance unit interactions to 1v1's and then implement things like the fuel cache manpower requirement increace and tweak the abilities that team mates can profit from and there you go, game fixed. Problem is... it takes a long time and it's needed lots of feedback. |
The StuK 37 gun was howitzer and thus used high angle of fire (indirect fire), the Sherman use a gun with low angles (direct) so they are different. This is not an issue of munition since both used HE.
What actually would make sense would be to replace the TWP ability with direct fire mode (timed or number of shots)so it can defend vs light tanks (AP shell where available for the gun).
Ok it seems that we are 50/50 right and I agree with you, changing the ability to something more suited for this gun would be a nice change and oportunity to bring something fresh to the game. What about giving it a toggle ability that would allow the player to change from a longer shot (M8 Scott like) but less precise, ideal to pressure garrisoned units and at guns, and a closer range/direct shot but more precise, ideal to deal with rushing infantry? |
look to the M8 Scott and its 75gun. it can fire at a huge distance, is very fast, have turrent, fantastic acuraccy, good wiping potencial ...and than look the stug-e.
its slow, cant fire at long distance, have no turrent, is a commander abilty and have a poor acuraccy/ no wiping potencial
Ikr, in most cases it seems that allies have stock units/abilities stonger than the axis commander counterpart. It would make logical sense that commander units/abilities would be better (not op) than stock units for the sole reason that you have to "restrict" yourself to a commander to get those said units/abilities. |
Actually the Stug -E is very similar to Leig gun so the current implementation of slow moving projectile with a ballistic trajectory is more authentic.
The stug e didnt have a "slow moving projectile" it had a low velocity gun and in consequence the projectile wasnt as fast as a projectile fired from a high velocity gun (but was still a fast projectile). By being a "slower projectile" it lacked penetrating power and thus pz4's and stug's that had this gun were used to support infantry and used HE shells. So imo instead of the shell that the stug e has at the moment it would make a lot more sense to give it the HE shell of the sherman.
|
Portugal
0
Ace
LiquidSun
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
