Just registered for this post. Finally someone realized that Falls are overpriced glass cannons. Heck they even lose 2 models while fighting with cons and they have absolutely no chance to fight penals or shocks if opponent is microing a little bit to avoid the grenade.
Make them 5 man dropping with MP-40s (later upgraded with FG42)
Increase the cost back to 400
Remove the panzerfaust to prevent Falls blobs being immune to tanks.
Remove the blendkörper give it a potato masher smoke
1. 
2. Mod team (at least Sander93) is aware of the Falls problematic situation, lets hope they buff them in the next balance patch.
3. Your idea of 5 a men squad arriving with MP40 is close to the first relic design of the unit. Wehrmacht have a own Falls unit starting exactly as you mentioned, you can upgrade the unit with 2 FJG's or 1 MG43. |
I've been thinking about switching up my OKW commander lineup and I realized that not only have I not used this doctrine in awhile but I haven't really seen anybody in teamgames use it either. However it's peaked my interest because I wanted to pick a more aggressive commander and the Luftwaffe Ground Forces seems like a good option.
Has anybody been having success with this one lately, and how do you think it compares to other OKW choices?
Luftwaffe Ground Forces is barely used in 2vs2 or other higher game modes (But i saw Aerafield use it in 3vs3 with great effect). Right now its more a 1vs1 doctrine and it surely have some strongpoints like stuka smoke drop, valiant assault and the airattack.
Nevertheless it still has some real flaws:
- Falls should be the filet of the doctrine but are just bad / inefficient compared to US airborne, shocktrops etc. I really hope the unit get the deserved buff in the next balance patch.
- Heavy fortification is fine for "fortress doctrine" but i dont like the commander slot for LGF.
I would like to replace it with the OSTWIND - the unit fits perfectly to the theme of the doctrine.
- Airborne assault comes very late. The ability is basically an infantry pin and the same ability can be used at 6CP with Wehrnmacht's Assault support doctrine. Yes, the additional AT strafe is nice but the ability is not strong enough to be comparable to other air attacks which are available at CP12.
- Options: Airborne attack should work like the Sturmovik attack including the additional AT strafe - then it can stay at CP12.
|
Amongst other things.
I hope OKW Falls are among "other things"  |
I suddenly come with an ideal, we delete bolster upgrade, make infantry section gren clone from the stat, with 1 bren upgrade but can receive on the front line like gren Mg42 and have HEAT nade (stick to mills bombs tech). Then, we add another unit into company command post, call "bolster infantry section", yes, exactly the same 5 man with 2 bren tommy as we have had but now in latest tech, make them basically ober equivalent. Now UK have 2 type of mainline infantry and they can be balanced separately in price and performance in conjunction with other faction. No neu models required, Happy?
Just want to mention that "Reconnaissance Sections" are already in the game files who can get a "scoped Lee Enfield". Adding them could also give UKF 2 types of main line infantry. |
There are several good options on the table to nerf Sections without touching the delicate general balance too much. I personally would prefer cost increase(s) and then see how they work.
Options:
- Section mp cost to 290
- Increase reinforcement cost
- Options for the 5-men upgrade:
- Increase cost for 5-men upgrade
- Delay the upgrade to a later stage of the game
- Bolster upgrade takes up 1 weapon slot
|
A choice to either get mowed down trying to approach with MP 40s or keep Kar 98Ks and lose all long range firefights versus Allied vetted upgraded infantry because their Kars are mediocre at best. That doesn't seem like very good choices to me. Toning down Allied mainlines would also have consequences for how well they'd match up with LMG Grens and Panzergrenadiers and Obersoldaten and G43 Panzerfusiliers, they are not solely balanced against STG 44 Volks. It's a delicate ecosystem we can't simply go mess around with.
I personally don't think the STG 44s are that impressive at all, and neither are Volks. They are cost efficient mainlines yes, and they are pretty versatile, but they do not really excel at anything else. Yes the STG 44s improve DPS at all ranges but it's not an overly impressive improvement compared to certain other weapon upgrades.
To make weapon upgrades choices rather than no brainers is a great concept, and one that I would happily back up, but sadly Relic implemented almost none of them. The game would need to be designed with these choices in mind. However at this point in the game's life cycle, infantry balance is so intertwined, we can't introduce it just for one unit because they would be at a major disadvantage and we'd have to adjust a dozen or more other units just to accommodate it.
+1 Good post! |
|
Hi guys,
i would like to bring a up an additional idea for a possible revamp of the firestorm commander in the future.
The Artillery officer would fit really good to the theme. The unit would only need a slight change - i would suggest to give the unit an off map incendiary barrage as part of the veteran abilities.
The arty officer could replace then "incendiary rounds" as commander ability.
|
True, but only to some extend. The goal is always to give players as much freedom as can be allowed, but somewhere a(n) (arbitrary) line has to be drawn. This line is based on (cost) effectiveness.
If this new T1 + T2 skipping becomes a too effective meta, and if it ultimately proves that other factions can't reliably cope with that, something will have to be done about it. It's on the radar.
Would putting schreck upgrade for pgrens behind t2 not solve the issue? Allies would then have a good chance to punish players skipping t2 with light vehicles.
Pfussies also need tech to get the At upgrade. |
I've got no problem with this new tech structure, but T2 should have a comparable cost to T1 in its current state, at least in manpower.
+1
MAybe it would be an option to increase the cost of battlephase 1 and decrease the cost of t2 building. |
|
Toxic players!
|
Relic Entertainment
