There was a post in this thread that contained plain-and-simple racist content, moderators like myself are supposed to clean up such stuff off the board and have the ability to make such posts invisible to everyone else...so I did.
As you can also tell, we're supposed to tell everyone we did. This ain't 1984.
Thats ok. I think i missed the reply with such language, so i was wondering.
Well, nice work then! |
|
Well, you'd have to give riflemen, infantry sections, RE, sappers, and every doctrinal infantry for US forces and british forces that have weapon slots with them, the ability to buy upgrades on the field.
I doubt anyone wants to go there |
Just 1 can be fielded at a time (Both sides' variants, which include Panzerwerfer, Stuka as well). One of these rocket arty things can do exactly what they're meant to do: Aid your frontline troops in making a breakthrough. When there're more than 1 of each types, they will turn into the breakthrough themselves! Therefore, only 1 at a time! Make good use out of that 1 barrage at a time, god dammit! Not just lauch 2, 3 barrages at the same time (No-brainer style) and immediately wipe everything.
But what about blobs? You're simply hurting the best counter against them! Thats not the way to go. |
|
So. People have been rather mad at their vetted troops being whiped out by the rather destructive Land mattress and Calliope. People demand a nerf, perhaps in the damage output of each rocket, or increasing its cost/CP requirement.
I disagree with the first option. The damage of the rockets is needed to dislodge hard- to- crack defensive positions that OH and OKW are known to do, in an attempt to camp it out till heavier armor is available. OKW esspecially, with their lorry emplacement, can become quite problematic with the lacking, powerfull nondoctrinal options with USF/UKF.
Nerfing the damage of these rocket launchers will make these camping- strategies more rewarding, thus not only becoming boring to play against, but also a possible new meta(if it isnt one already.).
My suggestion would be to split up the barrage in 3-4 "sections" like the katyusha does; making it less capable of squadwhipes, but retaining its capability against defensive positions, its primary use!
Opinions? Be civil against eachother. |
Invised one post for racist content.
Explain? |
|
What do you think should be slightly buffed in terms of performance? This goes for both Axis and Allies.
Me? I'd prefer the Churchill getting an small armor buff, because my (possible lack of)experience with this tank is... mediocre. Its really just an veterancy pool for any smart AT- gun, and its counterpart in tech, The Comet, is far superior if properly used, which cant be completely said about the Churchill.
Now sure, There's no doubt in its ability to provide possibly the best infantry support operations in the game, but its Anti- tank performance is just poor, a bit too poor for such a high- priced tank. A well- managed P4 can take it out(but that can be said about any medium tank, so its not truly an argument.)
Regardless, im certain a small armor buff, at the expense of its health pool, should make it a more viable choice to go for as brits, esspecially in urban scenario's.
I'm interested in every opinion, but please. Be respectfull to eachother. |
Netherlands
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
