I can't help you if your deciding to be an idiot.
If only you had some ability to self reflect you would see who is the idiot.
Bringing in about everything other doctrines have to offer despite ost being a faction with a complete and solid stock roster to try to see if vsl is good enough and resorting to insults is not helping you.
With the g43 vsl they became to strong as you agree with. The stg vsl is not so extremely worse that vsl grens become usseles. You just get as tanky vsl gren squad with a bit lower long range dps then before but a bit more focus to close up and mid.
With vsl they should be on par with single upgrade allied inf not outright beat them and be on par with double upgraded inf. Imo with the stg vsl this is mostly achieved. |
You know what talk to the pro on what they think is arbitrary reinforcement cost or side tech. Go ahead I'm not willing to spend the energy trying to explain it to you. It's very evident you haven't played coh1 tin order to understand what the point of side tech used to be.
I think we are on different pages here.
I don't want VLS to be OP. I want them to be balanced right.
You did not understand my point. I can not account the cost of side tech on individual units. Because what is that supposed to mean.
The VLS upgrade is doc specific. How are you going to account for the price(the cost of which is loosing out on stuff) of that for individual squads.
And make a comparison with side tech and doctrine choice.
Like as I said can you find a good way to account for all of this. If you can, give a rundown i'd like to(more like more than willing to) hear that.
What ever man, just show complete pictures and not selectivly add costs and leave out others.
Other doctrinal upgrades look out stock options as well. Vsl is not unique in this regard. Cons for example have 7th man look svt and ppsh and vice versa. Vsl locks out lmg42 nothing else. Not the tigers not ninja smoke or ju87 etc those are in other doctrines and have no bearing on the cost or effectiveness of vsl in the slightest.
The question is what shoukd vsl in the inf doctrine bring to the table, durability and field presence should be the focus imo, not becoming about 5 man obers.
|
Now how do I explain this, the cost most of side tech in the game is really arbitrary at this. The original purpose of these side techs were to force you the player to decide to I sacrifice teching up for making my already existing army stronger. That cost is of very little significance in that regard, it's actually a minor micro inconvenience at this point actually. And how would you evaluate that actually. Divide by the number of units you make what happens if you make more/less units. Then what kind of price are you willing to put on doctrinal exclusivity which locks you out of options that these side techs no not. It's not me being disingenuous it's me failing to account for many factor that has no way of being accounted for. Like rally what if you make 7 rifles in a game(make em replace em what ever) that cost of racks is nothing compared to giving up JU87's, Spotting scopes, Ninja panzers, Tiger and a lot of other things. If you can come up with a better metric for accounting for all of this i'd like to hear it.
Reinforce cost is arbitrary as well. Its mostly 90 or 120 mp depending on the squad numbers. Thats under a minute in mp recources, you are not even gonna notice it. Not even taking into account reinforce cost reduction later on, free healing on the squads.
To do it for one and not the other is misleading and dishonest.
And how does choosing a (infantry) doctrine that does not have ju87 tigers etc mandate vsl being op? Wich have nothing and i mean absolutly nothing to do with vsl. You are stretching things to far to make vsl and its doctrine seem up.
|
Fair point, I forgot to add the 30 MP for the fifth model of Grens. Yes, then I agrree that those squads are roughly equal in costs.
In general I think though that doctrinal abilities should not be stronger by default than stock choices. It is good enough if they offer a viable option.
Lumping the 5th model in with grens cost while leaving out the mp and fuel cost to unlock nades and upgrades for rifles doesnt show a complete and honest picture.
Vsl grens shoudnt be on par with fully kitted rifles or sections, ost regardless still has acces to their entire stock arsanal witch dont struggle vs allied inf mostly, its just grens that do with 4 men and vsl remedies that. |
T-34/85 is simply more cost efficient than PzIV J.
That both t34's are more cost effevtive is in line with the faction. Same with okw and redicolous armour out of the gate.
Has any one ever used ram on the the t34 85? Its quite a bit unfitting and nearly usseles ability for such a unit. Just a lazy copy paste. |
It's good that we talk about such inconsistency in this thread. That's exactly the kind of minor change that the commander patch have to tackle. Fuel cost needs to be increased or the HP needs to be lowered.
That being said the T-34/85 is a hell of unit and should be in more 2bd or 3rd tier doctrines.
The t34 85 is fine as is. Its doctrinal and can take an extra shot but gets penned by all forms of at with its 160 armour vs 234 on the p4j.
Unlike the p4j wich bounces with some consistancy all but the heaviest at sources. Giving it about the same maybe a bit more suvivabilty then a t34-85.
And as whe are speaking of inconsistancy why does the p4j start with such high armour out of the gate? If the t34 85 isent allowed more health then normal meds then shurly the p4j or even panthers comets and japgzr 4 shoudnt have such high armour as well. |
|
Just be happy vsl covers the grens greatest weakness, their durability. They could just give the vsl a luger.
And how people get that bal team hates ost is just strange. It isent like pgrens ostruppen grens ostwind panther brumbar recieved any buffs over the last few patches now did they |
The unit will still remain prevalent and strong cause the nerfs are small and tech adjustment was small as well.
Value of unit is more than fine, the problem is that it just drags the other 2 units in the tier for it.
Yes its prevelant ofcourse how else do you put on the pressure as soviets. The t70 isent just any unit, it is the mid game. Together the small nerfs have a noticable impact.
Dont get me wrong toning it down in dps was the right choice. But together its to much without cost reduction. Esp since lots more nerfs have been done besides the t70. Somewhere a cost reduction seems in order how ever small.
|
This pretty much. The ROF decrease results in a net DPS loss of barely 15%, and the new AoE model count restriction won't apply in the majority of combat situations, either. Together with the slightly earlier arrival I'd argue the combat value of the T-70 has hardly been reduced by the Balance Preview changes. Yes it might dish out a bit less damage against extremely bunched-up or garrisoned targets, but nerfs to mobility or survivability would have hit the unit way harder than a mere readjustment of its already great DPS.
I would still like to see a price reduction of the same level as the nerfs. While not bad its timing is a bit to late imo. |
im talking about brumbar armor nerf which revert to 100% even after the 60td nerf. again, we need to see what compensation of nerfing brumbar, vsl and ostt, critical units.
lets also not talk about panther, 'dive and high durable and AI'. it is a dead horse, and not many think highly of that outside of 4v4 late games. panther works in 2v2 but not OP or even close.
Entire late game nerf for soviets is already quite some compensation for vsl brum and ostr nerfs.
You where comolaining about 60 range high pen td's. I countered with axis have very high armour stock, inlike usf and sov esp. Hence why allied td's need to do their job well.
I also did not say or state panther is op. Just that it operates differently. |
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
