|
how about we make it similar to the aec? first requiring an optional upgrate then one can use the puma. If they want to be aggresive with light vehicles they have to pay, without making the puma useless.
That way timing can be adjusted fair |
|
i personally think conscript perform kind of okish stat wise to be honest. I often find myself using them as merge for my flamethrower going for one or 2 engineers to merge with. One should be carefull when buffing stock units like that.
When i play cons i usally buy map presence for blood until i can get smth that has a punch (flamethrower t70 maxims) so i definitly think you can make them work
But i feel like mentioned in this thread they lack utility. When i go penals its cheaper to just backtech towards mgs and paks then getting the cons upgrates. The inital field presence doesnt seem worth it to most players which i understand.
My solution would be to reduce cost of OHHRA to 15 mun, while reducing the cost of molotov to 15 at vet 1 or 2 and also bundleling the molo with at upgrate. That way one could actually use the abilites of the conscript without paying a premium price. Just as an example (sprint + faust = 35 mun) ohhra + at nade = 45 mun. Most of the times its just better planting mines getting flamethorwers then using cons abilities.
That way one could have an high utilty sqad (sandbags flame nade snare) while sacrificing in raw stats.
Basically cons would play in 2 ways then, rushing the map and digging in (sandbags) while also denying cover, and 2nd ohhra + ppsh if you go for those commanders
|
|
the dmg on one is quite low while having large aoe, causing problems when facing multiple m42s, my solution would be to make it a free ability with a long cooldown, so it cant be used permanently similar to the Stupa barrage |
|
could peaple make the upgrate cost 2 weapon slots then?, since i dont think the AI can be fixed with flamethrower trying to get close while rifle nade trying to stay back |
Give them Panzerbuchse instead and you will NEVER see it being used. You would have to be trolling or crazy to go Panzerbüchse instead of G43 package.
True nobody would sacrfice AI espacially since you can get a rkten and have snare
How about giving them the guards ptrs?
The only reason peaple use penal ptrs is becouse of the lack of pak or snare
|
|
the biggest problem is IMO 2 things:
cp0 snares removing one of okws primal weaknesses in the early game, which will pretty much make m3 builds obsolete and give okw even more snowball power.
Call in tiger which will make mech techbypass builds even more popular then they are currently since tiger is even more flexible then command panther
|
|
i think time on time is not very good, but giving usf an very strong offmap would make it IMO. Its fine as it is, it cant kill paks or mgs if the opponnent is not brain afk, but it does decent amount of dmg to okw hqs and kills flhs and pak 43s in 99% of the cases.
it could get the okw firestorm stuka barrage treatment so that some shots always land in the middle , to work out the 1% stupid rng cases |
|
it isnt enough to look at the sqads in general, but to lock at the sqads they are fighting. Pathfinders are fighting mostly longrange infantry in the ealry game (volks and grens) making them perform good even without higher RA bonuses, while JLI fight mostly more CQC infantry. Brits is another story though and might be looked into. The fact that JLI rifle ignoeres cover might be problematic for brits.
EDIT: Peaple forgot to mention the fact that Patfinders can equic 2 weapons which can be a problem in longer games (normal pathfinder can become weapon pinatas but Reacon ones tend to perform very well)
Not to forget the +20% range on vet 3.
Therefore a 1 to 1 comparsion isnt helpfull at all |
|
the greyhound target size seems a bit small. seems very hard to hit in comparison to other light vehicles. does anyone have the exact stats in comparison to t70?
if it is smaller i would suggest increasing it to t70 level and it should be fine |
|
coudnt agree more with lago, the changes are kind of good and i understand that mistakes can happen, but a long range rifle that negates cover shoudnt be on a 4 men sqad gamedesign wise. Since it destroys relative positioning and rewards the opponent more for sitting in cover while you cant do the same. |
1
Relic Entertainment
