dude! this isn't about 4v4. i am a 1v1 player to, or atleast i was. i mean i've faced IS2 in 1v1 recently and tbh i wasn't afraid of it. the thing misses all its shots. it should be a litle more to the side of the tiger. i want it to atleast fucking hit its shots. it keeps missing and when it hits it may kill a model maybe 2 if you're lucky. i like how the tiger is right now but not how the IS2 is.
so what tank is 'weakness-free'? doesn't every tank have AT to counter it? isn't that their weakness?
LOL the last bit is just funny. so you use the IS2 defensively? so you can sit back at the points you have but you can't attack the opponent? guess i'll have to use other units than my heavy tank that's supposed to have some impact on the game. idk what you're trying to accomplish with saying that.
shit man with buffing that accuracy a litle it will probably become the centaur when brits came out.
AT isn't even a reasonable category. AT is split into handheld infantry based AT, anti-tank guns, tank destroyers, other tanks, random stuff like 17pder, Stuka CAS etc. Heavy tanks have enough armour to constantly deflect handheld AT and non-AT specialist tanks.
The Pershing is a heavy tank with only one weakness - low health and many strengths. If it had the same health as IS2 it would be really overpowered. The IS2 definitely feels inferior compared to the Pershing - but honestly, the Pershing is an outlier.
If you compare Tiger to IS2 - Tiger has a lot of non-doc counters, and has significantly worse armour, but has much better scatter (anti-infantry ability). That's the definition of fair because you're trading offense for survivability. It's already a very good unit, and the main reason IS2 isn't a dominant choice is because of its doctrines. Not having Guards and PPSH probably means you're losing the infantry advantage, which you expect the IS2 to single-handedly overcome.
I use the IS2 like a much tankier KV1 with a better gun. I don't use it to dive enemy squads for wipes - it can't. Over the course of a game the RNG cannon rolls enough times to get a good amount of damage done, and it spends a lot more time on the field because of its super high armour compared to the Tiger. It also works well as a Spearhead tank if I want to make a big push.
I don't understand why you want the IS2 to be OP. You're expecting a 375 armour, 1080hp tank to aggressively dive and push like a P4 or a T34-85? Fun fact, no such tank exists in this game. Basically you want medium tank strengths + heavy tank strengths rolled into one. Why can't you accept that tanks can't be good at every single category in the game? Basically you want a Pershing with 375 armour and 1080health....Which would then make every other medium and heavy tank horribly underpowered in comparison. |
No, this is the most boring mode of the game. I don't know how IS-2 is used in 1x1, but in other modes it is not used at all. And balancing the game because you say that in 1x1 it is used, I think it's wrong.
Well 1v1 players would point out that balancing the game for 4v4, the most boring mode of the game, is wrong.
Just because you aren't good enough to play 1v1 doesn't mean that you can invalidate balance arguments made by other players. |
to get veterancy you have to pass an ammount of experience. now that is so low that it happens fast.
or am i wrang here.
this doesn't mean the IS2 doesn't need a buff.
it surely needs an accuracy buff and scatter buff.
It surely doesn't. It's already very good for its cost. I don't understand why people think that tanks should be perfect and weakness-free. If you give the IS2 good offensive ability it would be overpowered.
Pershing: Everyone knows it's amazing, but it has a downside of super small health pool for a heavy tank
Tiger: jack of all trades but not statistically impressive in any category.
IS2: slower than average, but extremely heavily armoured. It deflects Panther and PAK shots regularly with its 375 armour, basically trades offense for defense. Is good vs other tanks but RNG cannon vs infantry.
If you make it better against infantry it would basically just be a Tiger with much much more armour.
|
Satisfactorily. I prefer that it be used than not used like now.
Have you ever watched top 1v1 games, or played 1v1 games? |
Agreed, so perhaps you're right about a sort of Reserves/Bolster infantry upgrade be available later on to unlock 5 man squads to improve the survivability of these units in the late game where 4 man squads suffer the most in my experience.
As I said, not just the MG42, but the Vickers as well.
Which suggestion do you mean specifically? And the .50 cal was not my idea, I'm just providing a top down perspective of what MIGHT happen if this change was to go through, that's all.
I was referring to assault engies instead of RE. That solves flamer + sturms dominating early engagement quite elegantly. |
Not that I'm against it but making this change would trigger a chain reaction in the balance of the USF.
Without smoke being available in T0 this would more or less force the player to go the tier in which there is smoke, but then that would make the player predictable and vulnerable to another counter.
Specific scenario for example:
Ost player gets MG42s, USF players is forced to go LT for the Mortar in order to provide smoke for his riflemen and destroyed the garrisoned MG42s, Ost player reacts to this by getting 222s as someone else already mentioned, the USF player then falls behind because even with the .50 cal and AP rounds it doesn't provide the fast punch of the 57mm AT gun needed to reliably destroy said 222(s).
So case in point, the USF needs the mortar right now in order to be effect early game because of the mortar's smoke and anti-garrison capabilities, if let's say the REs are replaced by Assault Engineers with the flame upgrade which would handle the anti-garrison dilemma of the USF but there is still smoke left, if the rifles are given back their smoke then people will again mainly only go for rifles, unless of course the USF T0 is redesigned with 4 or 5 man Assault Engineers, Riflemen with smoke and let's say a WC51 to provide more options for the USF's start but then people would complain that they're mimicking the OKW in a way with their Volks, Sturms and Kubelwagen.
But I think that perhaps all T0 MGs should be removed as AEgion suggested as well so there is less of the early game MG lockdown problem which would make it so there would be less reliance on smoke and anti-garrison capabilities, this would in turn also benefit the UKF which rely on the UC WASP for anti-garrison capabilities against Ost MG42s and have no reliable smoke because of the static nature of the mortar pit not being able to reach certain places on the map which you might need smoke right on the second.
But then again maybe the Ost will suffer then even if the MG42 is replaced by the Grens in T0, I'm not sure of that but I know that Relic made this change with a purpose during the UKF Alpha because they saw that the Ost would then underperform.
Maybe giving them 5 men Grenadiers and Panzergrenadiers would solve the issue and would make them less reliant on the MG42s? No idea, I sadly didn't reach this phase of testing in my mod to say from experience.
All in all I believe there are several ways of tackling the issue, question is which way the devs think of and decide on, that's all.
I like playing Ost but 5 man Grenadiers/Panzergrens would definitely be too good. Maybe something similar to bolster infantry available at BP3 could be possible.
I do think MG42 shifted into T1 might be fairer as well.
That said, I liked your initial suggestion far more than 50 cal in T0. 50 cal in T0 would be oppressively overpowered vs OKW - which can barely handle maxims as it is, much less 50 cals. |
i had bring is 2 to battlefield with too much hope but it doesent effectife against anything,dispate it's 122mm cannon it cant hit infitry as like as panthers...
Can't hit infantry like Panthers?
Goodness, what level are you playing at dude?
The IS2 is already very good in its current state. Top streamers use it often, top players use it in GCS2, and in automatch it's a super common choice. People choose it even though it's in a doctrine without Guards or PPSH - that's how good it is.
IS2 doesn't have to deal with 60 range 240ish pen tank destroyers, and hits an excellent timing vs OKW if your opponent went for P4s. Against Ost, dual p4s won't fare well at all vs an IS2 and he'll be forced to rely on PAKs.
The IS2 in 1v1 is in an excellent spot already - if Command Panther wasn't OP and super meta, Soviets would be dominating with the IS2 every game vs OKW. Against Ost, IS2 dominates Ost armour, and even PAKs bounce very often. If it got buffed, it'd be far too powerful in 1v1 games.
It's similar to the KT offensively, with horrible scatter but good kill radius, making it a nonsensical RNG cannon. It loses to the KT in health and damage vs tanks, but it is far superior to the KT in terms of timing, cost, and having acceptable speed, accel, and turret traverse, while sharing the same superb armour value.
The only reason we don't see IS2 all the time is because it's in a doctrine which has neither Guards nor ppsh upgrade, which makes it painful for the Soviet player to fight infantry battles throughout mid to late game. |
Bro, when you get top 30. Snipe me in solo queue. "Nobody" plays USF in GCS
Being higher ranked than me doesn't change the fact that your arguments are based on outright lies, and you repeating them multiple times doesn't make it true.
The worst thing is that we're actually on the same side. We actually agree fundamentally that USF needs help or changes. The difference between you and me is that I posted actual arguments and actual solutions. You posted misinformation and nonsensical exaggerations. When people read your rubbish, they will not take the issue seriously.
Even if DevM or Luvnest said something blatantly false like "T34-85 has higher penetration than Panther" to say Soviet is the best faction, I would point out that the numbers are incorrect. Being a highly ranked player doesn't give you the right to distort the truth. Even a rank 1000 player can point out blatant mistruths.
I've no doubt that you have higher mechanical skill than me, since your rank is easily 50 to 100 spots higher. But you're also the guy who insisted Vet 3 Volks (0.8ra) have higher durability than Vet 3 Riflemen (0.6ra). |
- Replace major with M20 command car, gives command bonuses to nearby vehicles or can deploy into forward retreat WITH weapon racks.
- Replace M20 with greyhound, then move AAHT to captain and 57mm to Lt. Lt is now 57mm/Greyound/HMG. Capt is a heavier support tier howie/AAHt/Stuart.
LT has all the nessessary stuff.
Capt has some mid-game boost options if you're not in a position to tech to major.
Interesting suggestions.
Greyhound in LT tier wouldn't work - it would be too powerful. It would hit the field at the same time as Luchs while countering it effectively. I'd prefer to reduce the MP cost of the m20 so that it hits the field earlier, and has more of an effective window. Something like 260mp would be a lot more manageable.
Swapping AAHT and AT Gun would make sense though. That would give the Captain a Light Vehicle specialty and LT the support weapon specialty. |
|
I don't play 2 v 2 much, other than at a very low rank with some casual friends, so I can't comment on team games.
In 1v1 it's other USF problems (tech structure that splits AT gun and HMG, lack of mines, lack of flamer) that really cause me problems. I usually go for a doc with Riflemen mines + sandbags to mitigate that key faction weakness. Garrisons are still hell though.
I've never felt Rifles were the problem - for example in your post you commented that USF LVs are not fantastic. I'd agree, m20 utility car isn't good enough, and while the Stuart is decent, it always gets compared to the T70, which is godly. I think USF and UKF share some design issues that are causing them to struggle.
Imho, I think standardising important/basic faction tools like mines, infantry snares, sandbags, flamers, light mobile artillery would be needed. Lacking basic tools isn't about factional flavour/uniqueness, they're crippling weaknesses in the faction design that make them USF and UKF extremely vulnerable in a large number of common game situations. |
钢盔
FelixTHM
Demonslayer
FelixTHM
Relic Entertainment
보드카 중대 
