?Many? People complained about the lack of conventional rocket artillery for USF/UKF, as the Caliope/ Land mattress serve as more area denial weapons
An idea to give them 160HP rocket artillery was to give them both “Command half tracks” that cost 85fu 360mp that can call in free Rocket strafes/Bombing runs on long cooldowns.
The loud drone of the plane engine would serve as a warning that the strike is coming and the command half track would appear on the minimap
Anyway I thought i’d bring this idea I saw awhile ago and liked.
If these were added as non doctrinal units what would have to be changed for USF/UKF to be balanced with them?
I think this is actually a better idea for a new doctrinal unit than a non-doctrinal one. Maybe a commander that allows the normal M3 halftrack to be built and then upgraded to this capability.
Wasn't these changes attempted and reverted in the testmod before Brits got a snare? I seem to remember OKW walking all over them with luch and volk spam and Brits were dead in tourney play. The only thing that has changed since then is the RE snare.
You have to be extremely careful going with the "force Brits to sink MP and fuel into Bren and five man tech" approach if you ask me, especially after a patch where pgrens and T2 skip into ostwind is now a thing.
Also there's things that hamper Brits that still haven't been fixed for years like the lack of units to push vs sandbags/buildings with no flamer or mortar. Comet vet that sucks and sniper aim time that needs being put on par with Ost or sov one for countersnipes.
I would like to see an entire rework to adjust OP and UP UKF units if IS get nerfed not piecemeal changes. Change the upgrade structure and look at fuel timings, give Brits a flame weapon that's not sucky like the wasp or god forbid an actual mortar team nondoc.
If UKF had this available as a mortar instead of depending on the emplacement, it'd fix a lot of things. This whole faction design of 'leave out core units' really hasn't worked out for anyone. The mortar could have shorter range like the USF one, given that this was apparently true to history, and Im sure some other gimmick could be found or given to make it unique from the USF one.
In return the USF mortar given in the lend-lease regiment could be replaced with the M2-2 flamethrower or something else American.
TL;DR:
Pak howies are the fruitful son of mortars and howitzers and only makes it a whole different thing as itself and that also gives pak howitzers lots of value. It has none of the downsides but all the advantages. So far your posts only reinforce that idea and each time you compare pak howies to mortars/howitzers you do only to justify its OPness in a redundant fashion. If you were to aling pak howies either to mortars OR howitzers it must get nerfed either on its cost OR its AA, after and only after such change, the whole USF rooster can be adjusted. Its not original to be OP, it was original to be an expensive opportunity cost (a thing that its not anymore)
The only thing that makes pak howies (AA) unique is the sole attribute for what they are to be nerfed.
In so many words: I compare it to mortars and howitzers because they are indirect fire units. I cannot stress this enough. I am tired of explaining it over and over to you. I specifically compare it to howitzers because that is what it would have to essentially more closely emulate to stay relevant if the autoattack is nerfed, principally by buffs to the barrage, either damage or recharge or both. At one point you seemed to somewhat agree with me on this, suggesting a aoe increase on the barrage. If you don't, whatever. This whole hangup over "YOU CANT COMPARE IT TO X OR Y" has been a pointless line of discussion from the very beginning, but whatever.
I don't think I've asked for a fuel cost in this thread, I did offer it in the last thread. I have offered price and AA nerfs, the latter provided that some other aspect of this unit be buffed in such a way that it does not become irrelevant. Judging from your posts you seem to be at least theoretically warm to that idea, so this whole argument is still revolving in circles. The fact you don't think this thing would disappear from play with a major AA nerf, despite agreeing that this is the primary draw to the unit and despite even saying that nobody rushes or techs for this unit as it stands now, seems entirely counter-intuitive, but whatever. That is your opinion. Fine.
Pack howitzer being better than a 240mp t0/t1 mortar seems more than acceptable for it being more expensive, and restricted behind more expensive tech. Even after the tech work, it was not the subject of major consternation until the 6-man "nerf" that dropped the price by 40mp. You disagree, fine, whatever. We are posting in a thread more or less concerned with changing that, in any case.
I got your PM. I have been amicable to a nerf from essentially my very first post in this thread, no matter my opinion on the pack howitzer being OP or not. I have voiced my concerns as to what shape this nerf would have to take, and offered a multitude of suggestions as far as nerfs - and reworks - of this unit are concerned. If you have nothing new to say, no new ground to trod, then let's just end this here.
M1 depend on autoattack, like mortars, but they are howitzers because they must have range (but they also have to be cheap as a mortar and have autoattack, not like a howitzer. They have to have OP acc and be durable because Wstukas wipe them. O K)
What are you going on about here? Mortars can retreat too, the Pack Howitzer can't. How does that fit in with your comparisons? The pack howitzer autoattack is also the exact same range as that of the Ostheer mortar. Only the barrage differs.
I never said anything about making the Pack Howitzer more durable; again you choose to deliberately ignore my posts. I have repeatedly offered nerfs that make the Howie more vulnerable to counterfire, such as teardown and setup nerfs. While the price with or without teching is certainly not equatable to any of the 240mp mortars, I have also repeatedly offered a cost nerf, such as moving the cost to 400mp, close to what it was before the crew size "nerf", which landed the unit in the 340mp position that it is in today. I have made these suggestions IN MY MOST RECENT REPLIES TO YOU.
The reason why the autoattack 'has to' be good right now is that is the single strength of the unit, as it lacks a barrage comparable to any of the barrage-only weapons, and would be subsumed by the mortar in the light harassment role; a major nerf to the autoattack without any rework would mean this weapon would not be produced. Again, I have stated this in almost every single post I have made. Why pay an extra 100mp + 50mp, 20 fuel teching cost for a slower, clumsier mortar that can't even deploy free smoke?
Scotts are just there for decoration, are they? Mortars are useless too, dont they?
M7 priest are doctrinal but they are a clear example of how howitzers should not work, they dont have autoattack.
I think you are playing the wrong faction. Check next time if its USF or its something else.
The EXACT point I have been trying to make to you is that the pack howitzer doesn't get used as a mortar and, if basically made to be like a mortar via autoattack nerfs, would never be used considering the 240mp one at tech 0 would do the job just as well if not better (FREE SMOKE). Likewise the priest is, yes, doctrinal. I don't know what your point was there, as you seem to be implying I am setting the Pack Howitzer as the standard for howitzers when I have merely claimed that it best resembles the function of the howitzer in role than that of the mortar, and would need to further emulate it if the autoattack, the subject of this entire nerf debate (see where I am going here?) is nerfed or removed. You repeatedly miss the point of these responses, where I continue to say the same thing over and over to you and it just goes over your head somehow.
Bringing up the Scott is an interesting point, as you are correct in finding some overlap between these two units. It seems the cost of the Scott makes it less vulnerable to complaint threads like this, considering it also retains a somewhat powerful autoattack. Granted, the Scott comes a tier later, has a smaller AOE and appears to be less accurate and certainly far less consistent, but in return it gains higher base damage, and is also far more mobile. It even has a smoke barrage. Since you are apparently an expert on USF, I should wonder what your opinion is on the Scott and where it sits balance-wise, and what makes the case of the Pack Howitzer apparently so different to you.
When people run out of facts, they repeat themselves over and over, or turn into personal territory to field their arguments...
If someones shows me im wrong i will stand corrected and thats it. But others simply dont like to be proven wrong, their ego is higher than their ideas.
He says, ignoring the questions and supposedly much-revered facts offered to him once more.
To immerse himself in a false reality where extant, competing indirect fire units cannot be compared, and users cannot look back at posts made on previous pages...
Why can't you just act kindly lol? You are always on the offensive, to the point of it being hilarious.
I have tried to be reasonable as I can with all present, even PMing an apology to Doomlord52 for harshness earlier in the thread, and would be more than happy if I could be with him, but the difficulty getting through to him throughout this thread has been completely unacceptable. I'll hold back on anything else with hope that this can end, however.
Being dismissive has been very useful to prove your point.
But no matter how many times I have told to not compare pak howie's with former howitzers, you still do. Only on those aspects your point gets validated, and that's cherry picking in the first place.
With regards USF tech rework, yes it was good. But prior to it, USF were designed around a poor versatility and expensive side teching faction. After the patch those weights got lifted and many units became OP.
To turn upside down arguments in your favour is only proving your points wrong.
Would you care to show everyone how much a pak howie costs compared to the team weapons it faces? How effectively it counters them with WP and AA?
I know you wont answer, because you didn't before, but I already said that to fix the current pak howie, the auto attack could be removed and its barrage fire buffed, it could even become 6 man again. It will be the only (120mm) stock howitzer, with mobile capabilities, able to relocate at necessity, not like OH or SU howitzers that are doctrinal.
If that isnt unique enough I think we need to discuss about a whole new meaning of balance
I'm glad I finally got a decent post from you, even if it only proves you haven't been paying attention to what anyone else has been talking about this entire time, seeing as how I already compared prices in this post.
Howie: 340mp (250mp 55 fuel tech)
120mm: 310mp (don't even remember whats needed for this besides commander)
81mm (grw34): 240mp (80mp 10 fuel)
ISG: 270mp (300 MP 35 fuel)
Of course, provided no oversight you would probably tell me I should have included machine guns in that comparison as well, given the half-minded tangents you seem so prone to.
I don't know how you think I "cherry pick" stats when I have over and over again told you where the pack howitzer differs from the other howitzers in this game, over and over and over again, how the M1 depends upon autoattack instead of a powerful barrage. I have told you, again over and over that the reason for this comparison is because it functionally better resembles a howitzer than a mortar, given the lack of smoke and middling mobility, and the lack of any stock unit in the USF roster to effectively perform this role otherwise. You have deliberately ignored this reasoning despite the logic behind it, apparently for the sole reason that some are doctrinal.
Maybe if you had lead with this point about the teching, we wouldn't have wasted this much time finally extracting something constructive from you.
But hey, this is a start, and I will gladly be less dismissive of you if your posts continue in this direction. Is your proposal still centered around barrage aoe or something else? What did you think of elchino7's proposal?
If changes happen, we need to either give pak howitzer more survivability when walking stuka or move the stuka to the flank base.
Pack Howitzer is a team weapon and the Walking Stuka is supposed to counter team weapons. You can make the argument that it is too good in this regard, but that is the subject for a different thread.
I didnt even had to waste time to answer there. Ha. I think you are still missing the point, but its ok if you want to repeat yourself 1000 times if that makes you feel happy.
That shows poor reading skills...
And again i have answered all of them, even when you deny the answer because you dont like it. I have to say its pretty common on allied fanboys this kind of attitude.
But have you?
Pak howie is OP (means it does too much) nerfing it means it will do just what it should.
I wonder why you keep forgetting the USF tech rework overall buff...
First of all, learn how to quote properly. (Edit: looks like you fixed your post, congrats)
Secondly, I won't repeat myself anymore, since you're proving far too dense to hold this conversation, especially now that you are outright denying saying what anyone here can check by going to page 2 of this thread. (And yes, still refuse to answer anything, something you also still deny.)
Pack howitzer costs about half as much as a lefh, and provides far less damage, less aoe and far less range. That's fine, and all offset by the fact it can actually autoattack, and rather efficiently. That has been the central point upon which all arguments of this thread have revolved around. You can claim it's OP all you want, it'll be your opinion and it doesn't look like I'd be able to convince you otherwise, sure, but it's exactly why the unit is where it is now, and if it gets changed significantly, something else will have to be or the unit simply won't be produced.
Tech rework overall buff was ages ago, and pretty much everyone decided it was a good idea. You can hold the opposite view there if you like, sure, but it also has little to do with the topic on hand; you're paying about the same for the teching towards the pack howitzer than you did before the rework, now split into two costs. Do you think the 5 fuel discounted in total in the rework should be added back to the company mechanized upgrade? That might be an interesting idea, but you don't even say as much, it's just another thing for you to complain about. It's not like you comment on any of the other price nerf proposals here.
Either make some constructive suggestions for the thread or stop posting here. Everyone else is actually trying to reach a compromise that pleases everyone.
What about this concept (outside of just adjusting AA and giving the 6th man back).
-Unit gets it's 6th model back.
-AA stats changed to be closer to 120mm mortar (RoF and Scatter nerfs).
-Barrage cd reduced
-Heat shells no longer gained on vet. Instead, after getting a major, Pack Howitzer can be upgraded to use this type of shells for barrage for X fuel cost.
-Number of shells increased to 5.
-Range increased to 160.
-After using HEAT, disables AA/normal barrage till cd is down.
After upgrade:
-Increase time to deploy. Same time to move away.
-Increases pop from 9 to 11 (old popcap). By comparison, Howitzers are 15pop.
-Re-arranged veterancy.
-Vet 1 remains the same. Vet2 gives 30% barrage recharge. Vet3 gives -20% scatter on barrage +2 shells on heat (similar to vet1 on SU Howitzer).
It's worth testing, I suppose, though I really don't think the HEAT rework is neccessary in this case. HEAT already has worse scatter and veterancy reqs means it won't be coming as a surprise to anyone. All the upgrading just seems an unneccessary complication. I can understand the intention of using it as an upgrade into the howitzer role, which is interesting, I'm just not sure it'd work out.
Relic Entertainment
보드카 중대 
