No no no, I did not mean panzer was better, I only meant it had the [same same...but differeeeeent] different role. You know, better armour, but that's why Sherman has the crew + smokes, etc.
My point of differentiating was that the OST has a bigger armoured division pool, not that they are stronger in some way. I mean, they are stronger in some but that's why US is more versatile. That's my point. You win some, you lose some. In panzer case, you win one vs one front and center, but you lose the brilliant smoke canisters for retreat/smoking the chokepoints, etc.
EDIT: To conclude, in my honest opinion, all the factions are balanced and well thought out. Pershing didn't need the nerf though, I'll cherrypick that, Pershing needs to be the doom of infantry.
Pershing 100% needed to be brought in line with other heavies. The thing has always been incredibly dangerous to infantry, not to mention it's already firing at squads with lower health pools in general in the first place |
The IS-2 vs Panther matchup is the same situation. The IS-2's only about 17% better than the Panther, but you can't build 1.17 Panthers. There needs to be a unit or combination of units that cost-effectively counters the IS-2, or you've got a balance problem.
I think the is2 is far more effective than even 17%. Maybe in that specific matchup, but the fact that it can nuke infantry as well means, at least to me, closer to twice as effective for what you invest. With the aoe nerfs that heavies are recieving I believe that the panther will have a much more relevant role. Investing in a panther right now is a very good way to sacrifice your ability to fight infantry. Yeah, it's better than the Jackson, but it doesn't hold a candle to Tiger/is2/Pershing. |
What if Brits got a 25% increase in capture rate? Would that be a problem? Would it be noticeable?
It would be 60% faster 110% of the time |
|
Stormjager on a rampage.
-25% accuracy removal isn't that big a deal. The reload debuff is still there which is arguably much worse of a debuff than the accuracy ever was. |
2 weeks ago I was in a 4v4 game with a mod and his team mate who were on discord together. It was a long tense game which was very close. The mods friend called me a bot and then said I was afk(saying I was a bad player) so I said to him ok then I will pull my forces back to base and act like a bot. I was defending the right side of red ball - on vps and fuel all game also attacking center often. Last 2 min of game I pulled all my troops to base and protested against this jerk.
We then lost and they both conferred in chat and made a judgement I was to be banned.
I have the replay and chat screen shots if needed as I knew they might pull this. Am in the wrong?
That sucks. Unfortunately you proved him right despite the context. It probably felt great but yeah. Sometimes it's best to get out. There are plenty of matches in the sea. |
|
Grens and pios. Otherwise t1 is a requirement as well |
You are not going to deal with those in a vacuum or 1v1 arena match up. I specifically said the M36 is an issue but as OH you would rather be facing an army of M36 which are not going to do anything against your infantry and support weapons rather than a Pershing which will nuke them to the sky.
I mention both the Stug and PV cause those are the 2 vehicles which i feel like could get some smaller adjustments. ANY nerfs on TDs are not going to meant shit against T3.
Look, OH had been fighting with their current roster for years and fighting 60 range TD and didn't get dominated. Their had been metas on which it had been better or had been worst. But not because they can't deal with TDs.
Pershing is still the same... So far. Usf armor is going to be quite a force to be reckoned with. Which admittedly is a little weird, my perception of usf in ww2 wasn't their dominating tanks, but overwhelming air and guns/arty. |
|
I feel like one t3 unit bridging into a Tiger works relatively efficiently, and any further over investment leaves you that much further behind in countering a highly likely enemy heavy. |
Yep self entitled ost whiney:
During GCS2 the Panzer IV was the most commonly build OH vehicle. But this time around it was the 222. Tigers did appear more often, relatively speaking, as did StuG Gs (1:2 vs. 1:6 for GCS2). This is probably related to the players stalling for a Tiger more often than they did in GCS2, where Tiger doctrines were not commonly used. Similarily, only one Panther was build.
StuG-III Es where build in only one out of the eight Mechanized Assault games, so this unit is clearly not the selling point of the doctrine.
Hm. Not sure how I'm whining. Just pointing out a fact.
I personally always build a t3 unit. |
I think stalling Tiger and under using t3 is their self made down fall
Faction is great, ost players just trying their luck. Top players do, noob players follow. Tiger stalling noobs vs noobs lead to op ost. While top players played well to counter.
Less t3 allows t70 to roam and you get whiney complaints about t70 when no one think so before tiger stalling
Ost players must be the most self entitled cry babies
Tigers were picked half of the time. Just over, 22 out of 43 games. In those 22 games, they won 11 times. In the other 21 games, without a tiger, they won 4.
Maybe they needed to t3 harder. |
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
