|
Let me put it this way, so it doesn't seem like I'm cherry picking. I've seen a lot of books talking about how the allies' use of logistics helped affect the outcome of the war, I can't recall seeing a book arguing that the axis lost in spite of their mastery of supply chain dynamics. They had "wonder weapons" that were powerful and heavy and required fuel which they often did not have. |
|
The allies' focus on logistical excellency is a pretty universally-recognized truth by historians, no bias needed.
"... four other pieces of equipment that most senior officers came to regard as among the most vital to our success in Africa and Europe were the bulldozer, the jeep, the 2--ton truck, and the C-47 airplane. Curiously, none of these is designed for combat." ~Eisenhower
British had one Patrick Blackett. Check out his biography. Pretty cool dude
Germans... didn't achieve mass production of penicillin, which proved costly-- and were much less equipped to bring blood transfusions to the front lines, which is actually somewhat reflected in the meta!
|
To increase resources (2x) for a player who calls it in and sets it up on a point. Question answered, thread closed?
Getting closer, albeit smart aleck-ly, but the reason I posted it in balance is wondering what allies have to offset its effect ability-wise (or simply econ-wise) in particular because it makes unconnected territory act like connected, no? |
Why doesn't Ost have 6 man double lmg squads? Why does the Soviet have so many high AOE weapons? Why can certain units disappear entirely and move across open fields unseen? It's a game. Quit bitching because you lost and get back at it.
This post wasn't prompted by bitching (I challenge you to find a hint of animous in my post equal to or greater than your disproportionate, terse, and frankly insulting response simply to "quit bitching") nor was it prompted by a loss. I'd like to understand its mechanical function in the game. Your rhetorical questions are tantamount to non-sequitors, and could be used as canned responses to any post in balance. |
"I have seen this ability being used in a game I have just lost, therefore this ability is the sole reason of my loss and must be op" the thread.
Nope, been on a roll lately. Been wondering about this dynamic for a while. Notice I didn't say it was op, either. I'd like to understand its presence in the game, specifically pertaining to how it creates balance. Care to contribute to this discussion, or just pigeonhole me for motives? |
Because the game isn't balanced on history?
A clear type b) response. OK, so, not balanced on history, how does opel blitz create balance? |
|
Why does the Axis-- powers which historically struggled mightily with the supply chain issues (see Rommel in North Africa for example)-- get a unit which enhances their supply chain? I anticipate responses being either of the category a) Axis units more expensive and they need help or b) this is just a game and does not reflect reality, the devs wanted more people willing to play as Axis and so they've made them advantageous.
Personally I find both of these rationales deeply flawed. To the first point, you could simply adjust prices of units to make them more affordable. To the second, it seems generally agreed-upon here that the Axis' roster set which includes things like cheap light vehicles and other such make the game more forgiving to so-called "noobs," especially in team games where opel blitz seems to really shine due to more players meaning more protection (even if they don't reap the rewards of your truck). There might be a third point c) raised, which is "it's not that much resources," to which I'd say, not much can still make a huge difference. Logistics and supply chain excellency/flexibility has been argued as what truly gave the allies an advantage and, other than lend-lease, it's not really reflected in the meta.
Rather than say "opel blitz is fine" can someone explain why certain allies factions like the US do not deserve their historical birthright?
|
Even when your UC is at 100% hp a faust means engine damage because it does enough to bring it under 70%.
Pleas re-read the post; the 70% wasn't referring to hp, it was referring to the likelihood of fausting from wholly avoidable circumstances. I think people are being a bit disingenuous by saying "just keep it far back." obviously that is always the goal, but there is a saying "the only way a turtle gets anywhere is by sticking its neck out." Yes, I am threadsitting here, apologies if this offends the etiquette here, but I'd like to think people here are not so easily offended (wishful thinking, perhaps). |
|
This small arms fire is getting at my point. Fausting happens, you can attribute maybe 70% of this to operator error but at LEAST 30% has to do with inevitability/ wonky acceleration control issues. But anyways, very rarely does a UC go into battle with perfectly full health due to small arms fire, leaving you at say just under 200 hp, then when the faust comes, you're below half hp, which means engine crit time, every time. Then it's open season |
Speaking of raketen, the funny thing is I've had a lot of success with the universal carrier and I'm skilled enough to keep it alive fighting off raketen and shreck pios with my supporting cast, and even react to the rapid health drain of the mg incendiary rounds. I literally remind myself to keep the same distance I try to keep from volks' snares (and same reaction time to retreat), and it works out fine.  Better, in fact, than with volks, so... |
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
