I disagree. Abilities, are actually the basis of this thread. You can't ignore their existence for convenience. Despite the cheap cost, the 57mm is formidable if you have the munitions. Just like the zis, despite its lower stats than the pak is more versatile if you have the munitions. Abilities are as much the unit as its stats are.
Oorah is a pro for cons
Lack of a snare is a con for tommies
Volley fire is a.... Actually let's skip that one...
Flares are a pro for soviet mortars
Smoke is a pro for cromwell, Shermans, LVs and what not
HVAP is CERTAINLY a pro for jacksoms
Its also a pro for the 57mm
You mean to tell me that abilities that cost ammunition are a pro!?!?!? Oh no!!! I did not know that! I thought they put them there as a bait. |
Worth mentioning that the M57 also has the best Pen, DPS, and Range when muni is paid into it. (And the best arc by default), and that the Raketen apparently doesn't get the (Minor and buggy) benefit of "Green cover" that the two models manning the gun allegedly get on other AT guns.
Though I agree that the ZiS isnt in need of Barrage being moved to vet, I'm hopeful that the nerf with the coming patch is enough to make it a little more manageable.
Yeah, best penetration as a munition sink is not really any kind of argument. For or against. It's an ability, not base stat. Coupled with the higher than average armour values on Axis armour, it's absolutely needed. Yeah, best arc and tracking, worst pen. End of story. Any sort of munitions sink to do it's job well is not an argument for "pro" of any unit. |
Can we move Zis Barrage to behind veterancy 1. At the moment it's a no brainer for russian to get Zis gun as it's "I can do everything unit" with no drawback of building it. For any other faction AT-gun is only what it's supposed to be, gun to shoot vehicle/tanks.
Pak has the penetration, ROF and stun shot
M57 has good tracking but low pen
Raketen has retreat and above average model number
6 pounder has sprint
ZiS has barrage and 6 man and worst tracking.
Other drawbacks: Is locked behind a T2 building which means possible backtech.
Stop crying and deal with it. It's far from "I can do everything" unit. If ZiS is a problem for you, then balance is not something you should be concerned about, rather getting better and more alert. |
I wish 4v4 had designated roles. 1st player is the mainline infantry guy, 2nd player is the team weapon guy, 3rd player is the vehicle and armor guy, 4th player is the artillery and support guy. Give everyone 50 popcap and lock them into only building units in their role. Suddenly you have an interesting gamemode that might be worth playing with interesting teamwork dynamics.
Current state of 3v3 and 4v4 I wouldn't touch with a thirty-nine-and-a-half foot pole.
Are you high on drugs or sth? So the first guy wins the lane while the 3rd guy is sitting idly? 4v4 is fine. If you are into spamfests and memes. It's fine. Played 3 4v4 games in my lifetime (not counting vs AI I played at start), all 3 were horrible.
I mean, just look at Skippy's videos. Enough said. |
|
Don't play 4v4 if you value your psychic condition. |
|
Sturm is sometimes OP, sometimes not. Its shell is definitely devastating. Once it vets up, it becomes unstoppable, being able to single-handedly stop any sort of push. I don't think I've ever seen it not do complete wipes in it's AOE. Probably the most toxic unit to play against. |
You are implying as if trying to balance team games isn't harder than 1v1. You can have OP factions on 1v1 but UP in teamgames and viceversa.
OH is OP while using meta on 1v1 not so much in teamgames.
USF is OP when using mechanized on 1v1, not so much in teamgames.
I ain't implying that. I'm implying that why focus on balancing 1v1 when balancing 2v2 would achieve in my view, a better result as it is the "perfect" (subjective) mixture of teamgame and solo game. And 1v1 is the least played mode. It's probably the easiest to balance 1v1 as you can literally put units in a vacuum (the current preview patch has proven it) and call it a day. I can accept that. 1v1 is a clear-cut balance problem. No extra variables or anything like that.
"OH is OP while using meta"... yeah, if you use those meta commanders in team games, you'll have a bad time, but OH is nowhere near UP in teamgames. USF as well. USF does rely on soviets/UKF for some stuff but it has it's merits in teamgames.
All in all. 1v1 is easy balance but the higher the mode goes, the bigger the disparity. 2v2 would be a perfect mixture for balancing. That's my point. |
The problem is how different 1v1 and teamgames operate. First of all, you need to control a smaller part of the map and you can get away with teching decisions which would be an auto loss in 1v1. Sheer amount of unit volume makes some units more viable than others and fight flow tends to be more static, with clearly defined frontlines.
Most of the nerfs in the patch affect 1v1 mostly. Timing, healing, capping and sandbags. UKF doesn't have many options to recover lost ground or launch a counter attack cause most of their tools are awkward (mortar pit/Bofor barrage, artillery barrage and doctrinal Suxton/LM).
This leaves you with mostly brute forcing your way out.
UKF wins if they can hold into territory, don't get cheesed hard by snipers and sneak in all of their upgrades without getting overrun.
They have poor blob control units while they do more than fine blobbing on their own. I would say that UKF late game peaks other factions if they can get towards 2x Comet, 5 IS with Brens + Grenades and medic/pyro upgrades.
Teamgame wise i would say they are in a better position, specially for the average player.
That too. Out of all allied factions, UKF has objectively the best end game with comets or churchills. And again it's a 1v1 perspective which the mod team is adamant about forcing. It's not surprising that the patches revolve around 1v1 but that mode will never be balanced, if you do not want OP factions in teamgames ofc, where there is a multiplier on each unit. |
This is what I've observed, so others feel free to correct where I am mistaken.
Brit IS make early infantry engagements fairly braindead, as they stomp both Grenadiers and Volksgrenadiers (Volks quite severely),And can burst down Sturmpioneers before they can get into position to provide DPS. This gets even worse when Bolster is added to the mix. The UC also provides a TON of value/Bleed to the Brit early game.
(Alternately, during the times IS are undertuned at 4 men to be "balanced" at five, IS get walked over by Grens and Volks when the're 4 men, and then proceed to bully them after bolster... until the LeIG/Mortar light vehicle arrives).
But they get hardcountered after the initial phase of the game by dual PAK/Raketen and dual LeIG (And presumably OST mortar, though not as severely due to its lower accuracy) because they have no nondoctrinal indirect outside of the Mortar pit (Which can be easily defeated using PAKs or indirect... or even just infantry if you are able to push the brit away for a very short time).
The PAK/Raketen delete any armour that comes their way, while the LeIG deletes IS squads, as they must constantly hug cover to be combat-effective. Neither of these options can be easily dealt with by the Brit. The Brit can similarly not deal with an MG very easily due to a lack of indirect/smoke.
(Disclaimer: 2v2 experience, I don't like 1v1s)
As it stands, my games against a Brit go as follows: They crush my Volksgrenadiers at the beginning of the game due to the combination of IS, Vickers, and occasionally the UC, none of which I have a good answer to at the beginning of the game.
Then I build my Battlegroup HQ, fart out a LeIG or two, an MG or a FlakHT, and a Raketen, and the Brit is then able to do exactly nothing, and I walk him back to base. I can imagine the Brit player does not find this a particularly fun thing to experience, and I imagine it's somewhat similar in 1v1.
EDIT: Oh, in the case of OST, a sniper totally dominates a Brit player, with no real answer to be found until they tech up. A bit of a dichotomy.
Ok. Valuable arguments, thank you. The beginning of the game is a back and forth, which is fine. There will always be one faction that will come out on top at each stage of the game, unless mistakes are made. Sturmpios can turn the tide if you send them to the area of the map that has some CQC so they do not need to run over field to get to an IS squad. Things like that are the "mistake".
About the mid game, a brit player can dish out an AT gun. About the leig, flank it. The map is usually big enough for a lane or two that can get you behind them. Usually takes time since you have to go the long way around, but it's usually worth it. Took down plenty of tanks/indirects that way. Don't see why it wouldn't apply to 2v2 as well. Especially since people get cold feet quite often and do not dare to push while you flank..... Furthermore, I've never ever seen any attempt at flanking in most of the games I've seen/played. Seldom are the people that actively use flanks and cutoffs. Just wave after wave of fighting over a fuel point and the faction that has a better dig in squad usually wins.
The scenario that you describe, about farting out shit. Seen it plenty of times. Flanking is completely viable until you get an upper hand. Something that is seldom done in this game, 2v2+ (1v1 is pretty much one squad flanking, I'm talking about a big flank).
|
So they re OP to the point no pro wants to play them in ML4 Championship? Are you playing the same game as us? :v
Not wanting to play the game in pro tournament is not an indication of a good/bad faction. The seldom games I spectate I often am left wondering how those people are called "pro", based on decisions/builds they make. And how little creativity there is... which I can understand since there is money on the line. That's the problem, those no-life people that play video games as the main (only) source of income dictate the balance. On one hand, they know the game inside and out, but on the other, they will always go for the easiest and most brain-dead tactic they can to net them the win. Hence people say BS like brits are UP or brits are OP or this is UP or that is OP. Pros don't play them because they do not have as straightforward tactics like soviets or OKW do.
All a load of malarkey. Once the money is not the propagating factor for pros (eg, they get a job), you'll see a lot more balls-to-the-wall plays than you have now, and a lot more new content in terms of strategies.
It's not that "no pro" wants to play them. There has always been some preference towards some factions.
It's that the BEST UKF player and the winner of the tournament tells you not to play UKF if you want to win at all.
At least until the latest patch preview version.
That's BS. Sorry but listening to pro players is a recipe for disaster. They have their own mentality and vision of the game and think that brits are totally UP. Anyone that says a thing like that can get a check mark in that box "Bullshit"
Still haven't heard a single argument except for the "Pro" scene (which is laughable). Any argument for brits being OP or UP (my opinion is that they are perfectly viable from 1v1 to 4v4, a.k.a ... balanced) |
![[EOD] Ender flag](/images/replay/ostheer_flag.jpg)
Relic Entertainment
