Check again. 3 squads get's suppressed before the camera pans out. The model which throws the grenade comes from the far left squad which is not suppressed BEFORE the grenade is on the air.
As you can see, center-left squad is suppressed but the model i've circled is mid animation. It's a bit hard to tell in a still frame, but it is not in the air.
The 2nd grenade comes from the far left squad which wipes the MG, and yes that squad was not suppressed before the grenade goes out.
I know we're a bit late with this but we seem to have finally fixed this problem (grenade throwing animation not getting cancelled by suppression) just now so hopefully we can hotfix that soon. I think a significant part of the Infantry Section cheese (across all patches) has been caused by the fact that HMGs don't always work as well against them because they could still throw the mills/arty grenade while getting suppressed.
If it has been fixed, that is good. If it's still there after the hotfix, we can check but at least there's an attempt
Right HMG get move order while one squad is still unsupressed, another recover and get the frag.
He's been brute forced and the move could have failed the same way it succeed. Question is how comes he only has this army size when his opponent have twice the investment in manpower and upgrades on his tommies
The left IS throw the nade before getting suppressed.
Not sure if there's a misunderstanding on what I meant or not, but the section on the center-left is suppressed before the grenade leaves his hand. That being the case, the range reduction should be in effect if it was any other squad, but on sections that is not the case. It's possible that he was close enough that he was in range regardless.
I think the issue was I believed the 2nd grenade came from the crawling section on the far right when I think it comes from the far left section. My original post was aimed at the center-left section. Apologies.
Yeah I mean it's pretty cancerous to fight "buff all my infantry and charge" blobs but the LMG42s were mid upgrade, bad choice IMO but w/e, no incendiary rounds on the right 42, repositioned it mid fight. Left MG42 got cheesed a bit because one of the sections got suppressed while throwing the grenade but they don't lose their range mid animation like other units do. That's more of gimmick BS than OP sections. Pgrens in the base but didn't move them up till near end of fight.
It looks pretty dumb, but I think there were enough mistakes from OST there that it isn't so black and white as "section op".
Since I'll be heading home in a couple months from overseas, I was wondering what opinions players had on USF now. Has USF changed significantly in terms of play style and tactics or is it still a riflemen centric faction? I have read the patch notes but I wanted to hear peoples experience with them than just theory crafting.
DAVE!!!!!
WELCOME BACK
Riflemen good now, jackson still OP, pak howie still OP, pershing sad in teamgames.
Buff the aura to provide acceleration and speed buffs, this combined with the 10% damage reduction will make it a vehicle to help in the "blitzkrieg" role allowing your medium panzers to close in vs allied TDs
If the damage reduction is just put up to 20 again you'll just see people camping it in a support weapon wall with double sniper. Which was the issue before it was nerfed.
So the mobility buffs with 10% DR would be much better, especially on maps like steppes for those deep flanks. The teamwork role of the unit would be kept too.
I like this idea, although I’d change the speed buff value. 10% of an acceleration is like 0.5 at the most. Not really worth mentioning a lot of times.
Would it really become meta again with the command P4 behind tech? It kinda shuts down t70s but it’s not like OST is running over soviets early game anyways.
I think what adds to this problem is that people seem to grossly underestimate the huge variation in possible outcomes, especially in Tank vs Inf fights, due to the several layers of RNG in effect here. This, paired with confirmation bias as you pointed out, inevitably leads to wrong conclusions being drawn - which is understandable since especially those very unlucky, highly improbable events tend to stick in mind. KT overshoots four times in a row? Tank is total garbage!
The problem is that, sadly, this kind of preformed opinion is very hard to change, even in light of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
While I’m not going to say you’re wrong, the model and tests don’t incorporate elevation or debris. The expectation of perfect tests is clearly unattainable, but I think it’s probable that tests can show the pinnacle of performance given they’re done in vacuum environments a lot of times.