|
I'd say that T70 recon needs to be nerfed a bit. It feels a little unfair when u play having T70 with so farseeing. Maybe reducing sight range by 15% will be enough. But OKW Spec Ops flares needs to be nerfed as well. Yes, it's doctrinal, but it's uncounterable and provides even more ridiculous sight. |
OKW is designed with their income penalty in mind. They are designed to be able to counter enemy armour no matter their fuel income. Of course they can't face down the hardest allied target with ease, that's literally the point of that tank. Allies have higher pen TDs because Axis have a NUMBER of high armour targets in their core roster. Across all the allies only the brits hammer and anvil tiers have stock units over 200 armour. That's 2 units that are mutually exclusive across 3 factions.... Okw has 4 by themselves. 1 faction has double the high armored units than the 3 opposing factions combined.. Of course the other side has higher pen TDs.
Shrek on sturms was never designed to be. It was only put there because a Rak, a puma, a 60 range TD and a panther were simply not enough AT for the masses. I don't like the Shrek on sturms and I don't use the Shrek on sturms, but that doesn't mean it's not an option if need be. Against the Is-2 one shouldn't be expecting a single unit to be countering it like one shouldn't expect a single unit to counter the KT (this is a reason I think the KT is UP, and have in the past requested its armour bump to at least 400)
Rear armour on all heavy armour was dropped also, so flanking is always an option (another reason the slow ass KT should have its armour upped)
OKW isn't helpless but everyone wants the best way to do things to be frontal assault. Heavy tanks are supposed to dissuade that. Allied TDs have been overbuffed to bypass that but that's a symptom of a shitty pen system that means even a final tier TD could likley do nothing at all against a number of units it was designed to counter. Add deflection damage to all high end TDs and drop their pen so armour can be a thing again.
I agree to that.
When I play OKW i never feel helpless vs allied tanks. Literally, never. Early game I have raks, they can take care of almost anything, except heavies. True, they are weaker than other ATs, but they cost 50MP less, can retreat and have useful stealth. They are not bad, they have their uses. Puma is good against LVs and even T34/76 and Cromwells, cuz it has better range and decent penetration. And in the late game OKW has 3 different ways to fight tanks - JP4 (useful, and gets monstrous when vets up), panthers and KT. KT I guess is less useful in that way, but panthers and JP4 are fine. |
I want a civil discussion about this. This is my honest experience during the last months.
Soviets at the moment, especially in 2vs2 game mode are way too easy to play, way too forgiving and way too hard to counter on the Axis side.
- 6 men weapon crews are way too hard to push away
- 6 men penals are also durable and will end up in a huge wave of superior infantry
- the new sniper is deadly against 4 men squads
- the T-70 is the best light tank in the game
Countering weapon crew cancer as OKW is futile as you can't rely on the LeIG to counter anything and you lack flamethrowers. Flamenades are easily dodged.
During the early game and the early mid game Soviets have a huge advantage. And due to the Axis lategame nerfs (Elefant dmg, Vet Nerfs for OKW, StuG nerf) they are even on par with the Axis, despite having had a huge advantage earlier.
Su85 and Su76 reliably shut down any medium or heavier axis tank on maximum range. T-34/85 cancer is becoming more meta and if that is not enough you can steamroll anything with cheaper T-34/76s.
What exaclty is the disadvantage of Soviets? There is none.
It would be better to see some replays of games that you've lost because of OP Soviets. Better analyze on examples |
|
Oh, I meant T1 and T2, not T0 and T1 combined. Read your post wrong, sorry |
Creative idea here:
Scope for a Cons Mosin - unlocks an ability to snipe a soldier for small ammo fee (CoH1 brits had this thing)
Alternatives:
Or Sawed-Off Mosins, although the overlap with PPSHs would be huge
BTW Am I the only one who would take current conscripts over penals in most situations. One way or another, its always the flamers, snipers, guards and T70s doing vast majority of all the damage.
So you might as well shield them with a relatively cheap infantry that has weaker but more reliable snares combined with sprint
And dont even get me started on how terrible the Penals PTRS are
I'd use T1 and Cons combined more often, but that means I'll have less active squads early game which can be game changing. In 2 v 2 it's possible, but in 1 v 1 that usually leads me to low map control, cuz I just dont have enough squads |
|
Giving PTRS will not result in OPness, because PTRS don't have high burst damage. They can hit hard only if enemy vehicle stands still. PRTS take quite long time to aim and require standing still for a pretty long time.
Looks to me like the only way to use PTRS effective vs tanks - is in the defense and in green cover. You can push the tank back, bot not likely kill it |
Though luck, because Brumm just got hit hard by the nerf hammer (price remains the same of course, cos Axis)
I've seen patch notes, and still I'd prefer brummbar to demo charges in 100% cases, because it has reliable efficiency, and demos don't. |
*clears throat*
-much cheaper, easily spammable infantry
-faction that tends to float buttload of menpower and munition
-very cheap team weapons adding even more to the above
-sacrificing very little AI DPS on squads with solid base DPS at long range
-low upkeep and reinforce costs
-very high self sustain from vet3 onward
-vastly superior weapon with 50% greater damage and penetration then allied counterparts targetting weaker tanks in regards to armor
-not gated by additional menpower and fuel costs which weren't tied to tech directly
-doesn't have to go back to base or even be in own territory to upgrade
I'd argue about it, but the main point in this to me (to which I agree) is that Shreks were just more powerful, but were used vs less armored tanks. They had better pen, better dmg, a little less accuracy, but their DPS and, more important, burst damage was far better |
|
I think taking GH to 4 CP would be nice. GH bears low threat to LVs because it has low damage (tested it against 222 and GH won with around 10-15% HP). |
People don't react to the unit missing or taking ages to fire. But they will remember that one time the 120mm got blessed by RNGesus.
The unit no longer has 120dmg with precision strike. You should be more scared about 2 normal mortars which are microed than a single 120mm.
Unless you skip T2, 120mm is not cost effective but micro friendly.
That is true.
When u play 120mm u think "what the garden? will that thing ever hit something???"
When u play against it it's "what the garden? they have a howitzer mortar???"
But 120mm is clearly not OP. More range and more AOE, but high cost, less accuracy and low mobility. Usable and counterable. |
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
