|
I test the Vickers, did the same thing as Brens, a little better but not much enough to beat the other units in the higher tier. |
It is still asymmetrical balance with priest comes with stock. I am not requesting a same unit. It is actually boring when you have to pick priest/calliope commander everytime to deal with stock unit. My suggestion simply promote more strategic options and diversity for playing USF.
If he goes Stuka, you can get a Sherman to counter, it cost almost the same. Play aggressive with the Sherman and your rifleman and you can nullify the Stuka pretty much. |
|
again, 1v1 wise. This game is all about asymmetrical balance, imagine how boring would it be if every faction has the same units and etc. Saying this, every faction have his unique playstyle, USF may not have a good defensive stance, but they are great on assaults with a lot of smokes and mobility. Same goes with Ostheer that are better in defense and etc. |
|
IMO balance should be focused on 1v1. Saying this, Rocket artillery is very situational, Stuka delays very much the tech, and later on, I would rather have another Pz4. And it's very hard to land a good shot against a good player with Stuka. Scotts are way more friendly and somewhat more efficient, but again I still prefer to have just another Sherman as well. |
Couldn't find any good english language sources, only russian ones.
Here CP stands for Concrete Piercing.
I did only a quick search, maybe you'll have more luck - try searching for "203mm G-620 concrete piercing".
Thanks, I couldn't find it.
Would it be nice if ML20 could fire other types of shells aswell. |
It had concrete penetrating round similar to ISU-152 so call it that.
This can work 2 ways either there can be 2 fire modes or it can be a skill shot similar to ISU-152 or Pershing.
I can't find any source with that information that they had 203mm concrete penetrating shells, can you share with us?
I don't think there is any reason to a 203mm 100kg shell be a penetrating shell. |
One could simply have 2 fire modes direct and indirect.
Direct fires AP rounds to low range indirect fires HE.
Instead of suppression I suggest "shell shock" a critical that reduces the DPS of the unit affected. (same goes for ST).
Direct hit could cause vehicles critical like driver injured gunner injured instead.
The unit then could have utility instead of raw fire power.
I don't think B4s had AP rounds, not sure tho, but is quite unlikely.
But I like the crit idea. |
You are clever to avoid something bad , but make no sense to draw the conclusion of USF is balanced. You can have all the tools you need as OKW without picking a commander but USF is simply a crippled faction if you don't pick a decent commander having other kind of infantries ,mobile rocket artillery or heavies. Yet, USF is still a bit crippled, because there has no commander have access to all these options which OKW comes with stock.
That's part of the balance I think, Rifleman is very inferior to any other OKW infantry, but their MG and indirect fire are better. And I'm saying that they are balanced in 1v1, which is what it matters, rocket artillery and heavies are very important in team games, not much in 1v1. |
|
USF is balanced, even with the worse mainline infantry IMO (Rifleman), USF have good tools to support it. Weapons to compensate how bad Rifleman are, like OP HMGs and good light vehicles. But I stll prefer to build doctrine infantry like Pathfinders/Assault Engineers/Cav Rifleman than rifleman itself. |
|
Increase damage, reduce firerate. Its a 128mm gun, why would do the same damage as a T34/76 |
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
