Hey all,
I've been experimenting with UKF and was intrigued by the "buff" to the Comet with September patch. I've been trying to go hammer tactics in my games with limited success.
Have any of you figured out how to make the Comet Work, what mix of units does it need to surround/support it?
It seems best held back a bit until it gets to 2, then use as executioner to Chase down and finish injured tanks or inf units... |
OP was not intended to be a "bait."
Under the most recent changelog, the Jackson's range and accuracy were debuffed. They gave it a small boost in HP but ALSO combined this with the intended use being "get close and wreck." Getting closer to the target also means getting closer to shreks, paks, RWs, and other tanks, so the health buff will be mitigated by higher incoming damage.
Additionally, giving the US a "lategame" now doesn't address the fact that lieutenant tier has still been nerfed to oblivion. FBP hasn't helped that a lick.
Nerfing the other factions while ALSO hitting US with nerfs will still leave them floundering.
Pack howi and bulldozer sherman are part of the "arcing projectiles" fix and so this hardly counts as a buff. |
I have a long history of playing the American faction, and I've been playing them just as much after the major rebalancing this past May.
I think it is widely acknowledged that USF is super-weak in team games. 2v2 on up to 4v4. Usually more than 1 USF player means a really tough game and/or a loss. I think this is in part because of macro-strategy, where USF players are very predictable and only have a few effective strategies left to them. I think it also has to do with the nerfs to riflemen, and the fact that the strongest team-game oriented commanders also lack elite infantry, which means that the nerfs to riflemen hit these team-competitive commanders doubly hard (as they have no other infantry choice).
I don't understand how the Fall Balance Patch doesn't include some buffs to under-used or just-plain-useless USF units. When I go through the list of USF changes, I see nothing but nerfs to their team-game strategies. Priests have been nerfed and increased upkeep. Calliopes were nerfed hard, and their best use (thinning axis blobs which already lack other solutions through USF units) has been explicitly taken away. AND their monstrously high cooldown has been increased as well. They also received increased upkeep and are even easier to dive and kill.
I don't see anything to make the Lieutenant tier viable; they nerfed the AA halftrack a couple of patches ago to "prevent the dominance of the Lt tier" and this resulted in nobody using it anymore, ever. This is sad because the US can really benefit from the .50 MG, but trading this for the utility of captain tier results in early losses almost every time. The weakness of bazookas on infantry less than Level 3 vet means that they can't effectively deal with axis mid-game mechanized units, resulting in manpower bleed no matter what the US player does. This in turn leads to a lack of mid-game production, which means that by the time USF has shermans and jacksons, the axis are up to panthers with doctrinal heavies not too far behind.
Given that team games progress into higher tech tiers faster than 1v1, this is already a huge factor that favors the superior combined arms and more powerful late game units that axis can field. Soviets and UKF can do some things to mitigate this, but by every account I have seen in actual experience and here in the form, people have resorted to "don't play USF in team games," and nobody seems to be proposing solutions to "rebalance" team games, which is the supposed intent of FBP.
What am I missing? How is FBP going to "balance" team games when the most useless faction only receives further nerfs? |
So I'm not too involved in the balance mod or testing community, I've just played as a fan since the game came out.
Since the beginning I've thought that "people play this game regardless of how good/bad these xyz units are, and they still have fun."
It has been a rare instance that, in tournament-level play, a certain unit or combo of units has been "unstoppable." If there is *nothing that can be done* to counter-play and come back against something like Maxim spam, then I'd say its OP and needs fixing. Very rarely has that been the case, in my opinion, for any unit throughout the evolution of the game.
I WILL say that certain strategies can only be effectively countered by certain commanders and tech choices, so in that aspect sometimes the game is rock-paper-scissors through structural choices and not through unit-vs.-unit situations.
The game design itself leads to a certain amount of the problem, I believe, because it is problematic to have one faction group (allies) focused towards "strong early game" and another (axis) focused towards strong late-game, because it means that if a game makes it to the 40 minute mark, Axis will win 90% of the time, which can feel unfair, OP, or broken.
Likewise, an Axis player that makes some critical mistakes in the early game can easily think "man, maxim guns are way OP" or "riflemen OP" because that is where the allies are strong.
Right now, team games seem heavily axis sided because the mechanics of team games mitigate many of the "strong early game" strategies that allies use i.e. flanking with rifles and maxim spam. |
Thanks for the feedback. "Don't play US" is not what I was looking for in the US Strategy forum, hah.
I've found some success the past few days, but it's a fragile thing and I can't expect to dominate unless the opposing axis are terribad. The elite infantry commanders seem to be somewhat helpful. Many of the US "armor" units are so fragile that they seem to not be worth building since Axis seems to get there faster with better tanks, so most of the time I end up bumming around with a large infantry force, .50 cals, jacksons, and some pack howis or scotts. Occasionally mortars and AT guns are useful. |
The few times I've gone T2 against OKW I make a determination based on my fuel and ammo whether going for an M20 or the weapon racks would be the better decision. If I'm feeling a little short on fuel, I get weapon racks first. Then I usually equip 3-4 bazookas, which can kill the luchs really fast. He either runs away immediately, or you kill it. If you also build an M20, its nice that the squad inside comes with a zook so you can sometimes surprise the luchs, or flank it and finish it if it is damaged.
If he escapes with the Luchs, it will be a small thorn in your side, but with a zook on nearly every squad the luchs is mostly mitigated unless you get caught on red cover. Then it's just a short leap to capt or call-ins, when the Luchs gets owned. |
Hi All,
I was writing to get your ideas and input on what US should do in multiplayer games. I used to be a fan of mech company, and thought it would be useful for recalling the medium "shock" vehicles in multiplayer, but I've found this commander to be a waste every time (especially building the WC51 is terribad).
I've tried the other doctrines and have failed in battle after battle. The Amis seem to get squished way too easily in team games now. I've tried getting pack howies, scotts, MGs, all to no avail. I can combine my infantry, support weapons, and artillery pieces (even with Vet 2 and 3) and I still get roflstomped by the axis.
Ostheer just riflenades my support weapons, OKW makes my riflemen disappear before I can pull of an effective pincer movement. Clumping my infantry to try to get parity of power results in call-ins, leig, or 81mm mortar devastating my infantry, while I struggle to get the same results with my pack howis or scotts.
Getting harassed off our fuel even 1 time is enough to delay a sherman to the point that it is no longer a viable shock unit, two hits from a cloaked panzerwerfer or a couple from a PAK are enough to mitigate my "awesome shock unit" that all the guides gush about, and any chance I had of gaining a mid-game lead evaporate in seconds.
What the ever-loving *garden* are you supposed to do as USF in team games!?!!? |