|
Yeah I see it happen a lot with any vehicle even if they are by themselves with no other vehicles or movement blockers in sight. It seems to be 100% random as far as I can tell. |
coh2 kind of gameplay is the way to go just with more options and flavor for factions.
coh3 with 1943 theme and launching with UK vs Germany with US and USSR expansions would be fun. customizable commanders would be fun. buildable air units would be fun, and being able to directly control certain units outside of competitive matches would draw people in. (make it its own gamemode.)
One part of coh2 they should scrap IMO is the stupid "allies better early game, axis better late game" because it messes up the balance across teamgames vs. 1v1 and makes some games very boring (i.e. Usf roflstomping in like 4 minutes in a 1v1 if done right or being totally lackluster in teamgames longer than 20 minutes) |
back from a 3 month hiatus and on a +9 game streak as USF and ranked 110 currently.
3 rifle>LT>MG/M20>racks and grenades>scott is really good. the scott buffs make it retardedly good at killing infantry and the delayed 222 means i have the flank advantage for an extra minute or two.
rifle smoke/at nade/zooks/and M20 mines are enough to stall light vehicles although i havent played against mechanized assault stugs yet.
been back teching captain lategame for the enhanced production and stuarts to stun lock tanks for jackson. pack howie is still redundant as fuck unfortunately.
only real issue i have with the faction is shermans just arent worth it with the scott buffs. scotts plus jacksons are cheaper and more efficient than shermans plus jacksons.
Might try this actually. M20 doesn't drain away all your muni though? Because you need that for at in the case of luchs/222 or a p4 that comes faster than your Jackson (m20 mines are great, but can't be the only defense against a luchs or else you're screwed). |
|
My view is that IS are the only general combat infantry brits get (commandos are ambush troops, especially late game, and can't be used as normal infantry due to their RA and bleed). This means that they do have to scale really well compared to, say grenadiers, who generally have more support options (being an EFA unit), are more versatile (due to g43s and no debuff out of cover) and can be supported by pgrens. It is also very expensive to double up lmgs on multiple sections as well, and brens are kinda bad compared to other lmgs for various reasons IIRC, and drop a lot at vet3. Still, that doesn't mean they are 100% balanced as a whole. |
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 mean, if that's really what you believe the problem is (I'm not really gonna argue one way or another) then limiting to one makes sense. I feel like emplacements are really an all-in strategy (even when you stick to one of each IMO) when they really should be, like you say, a supporting element, but I think part of the fix is really just totally redesigning them. Like, when you go aec and sniper, you don't base your whole strategy around those two units, but if you go bofors and mortar pit, it feels like you do. That's just the way I see it. |
Cromwell pen: 100/120/140
P4 pen: 100/110/120
Oh whoops. I thought I remembered smith saying that the p4 had superior pen at long range (maybe that's in the balance preview?).
My bad.
Stop spamming threads already?
Wow
That's like, months worth of threads, and a lot of them were fairly simple questions like this. Why do you care anyway? If it's against etiquette, I guess I can stop making threads or something. |
|
If you are asking if it works, yes, they fixed it.
If you are saying it's op, remember how brits don't have a snare and aec is super squishy vs tanks (and it's slow). |
What about just increasing the reinforcing time from FRP?
What if you don't have major for your ambulance or upgrade for your medhq or forward position? And also, if you really significantly increased it, the only point of an frp would be convenience and an easy way to break suppression. |
IMO the Sherman is still a really good tank, its super versatile, but its lack of good support units causes it to flop sometimes
And it seems like when I make shermans I regret not spamming jacksons instead to deal with panthers and the like.
its 135 fuel turreted tank destroyer that excels at fighting all armors including super heavies like the kt, it does not suck. The only reason id consider is "media core" is because of its low health and Armour.
Those two downfalls make it very map dependent sometimes though, like most tank destroyers. Problem is, USF doesn't have any alternatives of that caliber (no pun intended) except for the Pershing, which is doctrinal. |
|
I'd like to point out that they did take out blizzards. |
0
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
