He means assault engineers from armour company.
Codguy is right for once, there’s so many garbage tier and overpriced units in the USF roster that it’s ridiculous.
Paths cost 290mp and 30mp reinforce. They should lose one of the two sniper rifles to actually be able to equip weapons and get their vet 3 camo at vet 0 so that they can be an option vs snipers.
Rear Echelons are bad, which is a huge issue in the OKW matchup since they have Spios and can upgrade Volks early without upgrading racks, so ypu’re basically behind 1 combat squad and upgrades right from the get go.
Assault engineers are awful. They need to lose their 5th man and become cheaper and more durable.
The 75mm M4A3 should lose its switchable shells and become a competent medium tank.
I don't really agree entirely. I like assault engies but there simply isn't enough else in that doctrine to make them enticing. The problem doesn't lie with ass engies, which function pretty well as an early game assault squad. It's just a doctrine that's gotten overshadowed by far better ones.
Pathfinders aren't a viable combat squad by themselves, but they're amazing paired with a rifle squad since they have 2 scoped rifles. They're also pretty much a perfect fit for the doctrine they come in, giving you self-spotting 50 cals which I'm happy to pay the premium for.
RETs are really bad for their 25mp reinforce cost - that I agree. They're basically CEs without flamethrowers but can build green cover. I pretty much exclusively make them zook boys. Wouldn't mind their cost or reinforce cost being lowered. |
USF has been the most difficult faction play in this game.
The problems USF have come from several overpriced/underpreforming units (RETs, Pathfinders, Combat Engineers for example) and a terrible and inflexible tech tree that greatly constrains the player in the early game.
Indeed. USF Combat Engineers are so bad, I literally can't even build them. |
To me it's just as simple as everyone should have rocket arty stock. The blobbing in this game is too ridiculous, and rocket arty is one of the only reliable ways to punish that in the late game
You shouldn't have to choose a commander to counter something you see almost every game
Agreed on principle as well as for this case, every little bit counts towards making the game more balanced for all factions.
Hope COH3 doesn't follow the same stupid path of "glaring factional holes in basic functionality = faction flavour, herderrrr....." |
Uhh no that's not even close to what I'm saying... It's not that the game will be over it's that if you get one AFTER a t70 (????) you're gonna have this thing called a p4 to deal with...
What? Well now you've lost me cause the AAHT is way better at fighting ground units than the quad. Can suppress on the move, and has the flak cannon to help against light tanks. It also arrives earlier...
Unintuitive in terms of having to reverse to go forward and to right click to reverse, and to constantly handbrake to maximise damage output. I'm not sure about the DPS vs infantry tbh, feels like quad does a lot better, but main point was ease of use and its resulting survivability. I like the quad - and I'm defending it against people who describe it as if it's "only good for AA".
I mean, if you could somehow build T70 and Luchs, no one would ever build Luchs. If you could somehow build both P4J and Cromwell, you'd pretty much never build the Cromwell. Quad is in an awkward spot because of Soviet T3 cost and because its rival for Anti-Infantry duty is the T70. That doesn't make it a bad unit "only having value as an AA unit". |
And you are acting like it's way better than it is. All those things you said are nice, but you left out the fact that it's in Sov t3
By the time the quad is out and upgraded you don't have much time to use it for anything other than AA. But that's not even the main point here, the point is that Soviets have no other AA units at all. Pintle on IS2/ISU is the only other form of AA they have...
You're acting as if games lasted a grand total of 10 minutes. Back when stall for IS2 was popular/viable it was my second vehicle after T70, and would usually get to vet 3 before stuka CAS was even unlocked. It's fundamentally a very good light vehicle, and I like it way better than the USF AAHT, which I find horribly unintuitive to use. I'm not even joining the debate on "is its AA capability OP" - just pointing out that it is way more than just AA.
Admittedly I don't use/see it very often these days, but that's mostly because Ostruppen/5 man grens = no stuka CAS and few OKW commanders have a loiter. And because, you know, T70 exists. |
All other factions with all their other AA have alternatives or suplimentary AA.
USF has pintles.
OST has pintles and the 222
Ukf could build a bofors
OKW has free AA on their base, can build multiple 2cm pits and has pintles
Soviet can have 1 pintles on field max, and they are attached to the most expensive tanks in their entire roster AND are doctrinal, limited to 1.
ALL other AA is also more durable or survivable.
USF can disembark and screw up tracking (can also use this to generate vet for other tanks or give themselves a Vetted AAHT)
UKF centaur can bounce shots and has a large health pool making it impractical to dive
Ostwind can bounce shots, has health and has mobility
OKW has smoke and again that free AA on their base which can't be stressed enough as bonus AA
Soviet AA not only lacks durability it also lacks any way to escape from a bad situation.
I've also never seen a kraut mower used as a shock vehicle like I have for both halftrack AA variants (not since it got its mobile suppression and retaining reinforcement after upgrade removed anyways)
Odd for sure the least flexible, least survivable AA does AA better than any other. We should definitely look into this more while complely ignoring the surrounding army and traits as well as the unit itself except exclusively its ability to do its only job.
The meat chopper does amazing damage, can fire on the move with high dps, has superb suppression, and has overdrive on top of already high accel and speed values.
You're acting as if its rubbish outside of niche AA uses. |
On playing all factions an equal amount
You're half-correct. People do need to play all factions to understand the mechanics and issues. Playing just one side leads to horrible bias.
However, playing all factions a roughly equivalent number doesn't make sense at all, since that would mean you play 50% more Allied games than Axis ones. And across a playerbase that is simply not possible since the matchmaker needs to match the playerpool 1 for 1 exactly. If 3 people are queuing Allies as Soviet-USF-Brits and only 2 people queue Axis as OKW-Ost, 1 Allied players will be left without a game.
So if you play equal games with all factions, you will have 50% more games as Allies - assuming that you can even find matches that often. The true equilibrium is playing both Axis and Allies 50-50.
This is why Katitof and gbem style comments should never be taken seriously. FYI Gbem claimed that my 1544 games as Axis and 1501 games as Allies made me "Axis-biased" at 50.3% Axis games (while he himself played 100 times more Allied games than Axis ones). |
You can do the same werfers and panzergeranadiers are cheaper and non doc.
They're just a lot worse. PGrens are a 4-man squad while werfer rockets take forever to reach and are easily dodged even by those with 56k connections. Worse still, Werfer has only 1 salvo so there isn't even an area-denial/pushing opportunity. With continuous bombardment rocket artillery, you can actually use that to support a tank push.
Calliope is so good I actually use the doctrine in 1 v 1, since it saves the trouble/cost of teching Captain + unlock for pack howie. The Calliope is almost impossible to dive and can even survive double PAK. Even as a 1 v 1 main it's a ridiculous unit. I can imagine it being hell for team game players. |
maybe thats because the soviets are performing poorly based on automatch stats... and are highly reliant on a single OP unit (or a certain commander) to carry their nonexistent midgame infantry play
That would be a legitimate argument only if top tier elite infantry weren't readily available in all the best Soviet doctrines already. The only two good doctrines which don't (Defensive doc and Armoured Assault) have insane bonuses to make up for it.
Armoured assault gives you virtually nothing early on in exchange for late game insanity with IL2 and IS2 tag team. Defensive Doc gives you dshka and M42, which are a different approach to strengthening the Soviet early-mid game.
People keep dishonestly harping on about "non-doc" elites as if it were actually an issue for Soviets. It's not a tradeoff when the top 5 doctrines all include elite infantry, and 8 of the top 10 do. |
As title.
I think losing a rifle squad mid-late game is too punishing if you have your own armour on the field because USF tanks rely so heavily on mobility and snaring enemy armour to survive.
This change won't effect early or mid game so much, but will make it easier for a USF player to know that they have a for-sure snare capable unit they can build and position in front of their fragile tanks.
Hopefully giving USF a less hectic and micro-heavy late game.
Should be bundled into the existing base grenade upgrade for no extra cost
I don't think it should be a "move". It would be strictly a nerf since it's free at vet 1. It would be better if nade tech unlocks AT nade at vet 0, while vet 1 still gets it for free. |
钢盔
FelixTHM
Demonslayer
FelixTHM
Relic Entertainment
보드카 중대 
