Profile of Jae For Jett

Ok I can get behind this line or reasoning - but even still, your "core" infantry is basically volks, and while certainly not bad, can become pretty outclassed by Allied infantry with their Brens/BARs/PPSH. So does this mean that I have to go for Obers (or FALLs) to win? Obers are certainly good, but vetted infantry can be more than a match for them, and I need to wait for at least 10 min for them, during which the allied player can usually have decent counters for them out (light vehicles and MGs hard counter them too).

So while the initial Volk spam opening is all well and fine to maintain map control, it inevitably loses momentum late early/mid-game - about the time you want support weapons to fill in those gaps to act as a backstop - and a time somewhere between early game and the time you are able to get Obers on the field. And, like I said before, it seems OKW has the hardest time recovering from lost momentum for this reason.

So, for this reason, it seems like this funnels OKW into a rather limitted viable 1v1 builds - namely Volk spam into Flak HT/Luchs (where everyone and their mother will go PTRS, AE Armored Car, and Zooks/AA HT to counter with effectiveness and doing so at the same time OKW get those vehicles out).

To your first question, yes. After volks vet was nerfed, obers became necessary to compete in the infantry battle against upgunned allied infantry. Using a build that doesnt use obers generally means accepting that youll lose straight up core infantry battles, and that youll have to pick up the slack in other areas.

And yeah, obers are lack luster when they arrive, but the idea is that theyll handily beat allied infantry once they hit vet 2, its just how theyre balanced in the meta. About light vehicles countering them, the same basically applies to upgunned allied infantry too. By the time their infantry beats your volks, you have light vehicles to win the fight. Just like when your obers beat their infantry, they have light vehicles to beat your obers. The point is, thats just how it is at that stage of the game.

As for the midgame stall, the idea is that you come into the early-mid game with an advantage and use your quicker access to light vehicles to keep the snowball. Support weapons are just less relevant in this plan. As long as okw is inferred to have an early game advantage, they will always be inferred to have more fuel, which means they will basically be relying on rushing a vehicle of some sort. Increasing okws build options to include team weapon reliant play wont work unless the team weapons are so strong that they can overshadow the advantage of a super fast light vehicle or medium tank.

Slightly different content than my previous post:

As others have stated, its straight up a worse mg42 and there is no situation whatsoever in which you would prefer a 34 over a 42. Yes, on the whole its also probably the weakest hmg. With that out of the way, not having a weakness is a significant strength in its own right. Its not lacking in any relevant area, so while its mediocre in a lot of areas on its not really bad in any of them either.

At this point, id argue its the baseline for what an hmg needs to be to do its job and not be lacking in any relevant stat.

So I happened to also catch the match in question and in my opinion, the stuka did close to nothing. In fact, I would even label it as the single biggest reason why Luvnest lost. If he had not gone stuka, he probably would have won.

As for your build proposal, the main question is "why". What do you need the stuka for? It "can" work for anti garrison (mostly by just flattening every garrison on the map; that counts, right?), but that usually doesn't justify the 100 fuel investment (which, again, is most importantly a 100 fuel delay on techs + tanks). It also does great against weapon teams, but does your opponent really have enough weapon teams by 12-15 minutes to justify that kind of investment?

Assuming that your opponent has enough on the field for you to counter there still is the (relatively minor) threat that you lose your stuka. The thing is, it doesn't even have to be the stuka that you lose. If you lose your luchs, you're now facing elite infantry using volks instead of possibly the obers that you could have had.

Beyond that, it's actually a long time to wait until you get your command panther out. 100 fuel in battlegroup + mech + meds. 230 fuel in luchs + puma + stuka. 225 for the cmd panther. That makes for around 550 fuel before you get your own tank out, and thats assuming you don't double up on luchses or pumas.

I'm sure a stuka rush can work, but I just don't see any reason to do it.

HOWEVER, if you went mechanized and teched normally, I can see the merit in getting a stuka after your first medium tank. At this point in the game, map play becomes more static and weapon teams are setting up their camps, so I see a stuka having a lot more targets. Also, having your medium out means you can punish the enemy player when you do manage to decrew their stuff.

The mid building still covers all flanks from mid, probably not the best to just camp like in live, but still useful if you are focusing on keeping flanks to north clear.

I see what you mean. The movement of the VP is probably also counteracted by the removal of west side red cover, so im sure its probably actually not that bad.

Did crossroads lose the 2 extra strat points yet?

And has the muni been moved to be more harrassable?

I think that would be too radical of a change. Also, I dont think its really necessary.