I'd say the problem is not incentivising losing volks, but over spamming them, not taking into account their late game performance into the first place.
1v1 high level will always be a different can of worms, but its not exactly hard to get 1 volk less, 1 kubel instead for map control and replace it later with ober or other elite inf of choice when it outlives its usefulness in any other game mode.
Four Volks feels all but necessary in a lot of cases. Kubels aren't terribly effective vs UKF due to the UC, and SOV picking up a ZIS or Scout Car makes it a bit of a liability, too. If you're "just" getting it for map control purposes vs SOV, incidentally, I feel as though that's going to be a bit of a struggle; Particularly if cons are able to get the drop on your Kubel with an AT grenade.
It can do OK vs USF unless they have a WC i guess.
In any of these cases; You're still having to make do with three mainline squads until you get the fuel/MP together for your BG/Mech and then your Schwerer. It's a long time to be "down" a squad.
Honestly I'm not sure why Volks shouldn't be scalable into the lategame, and Obers be available earlier regardless. Volks need not scale in terms of damage output, merely in utility/cost-effectiveness. I'm still saying that a "mobilise reserves" style upgrade would be a better fit for what Volks are meant to "do" than their STGs.
More viable openings for the faction would really be rather nice. |
This, and the Sturmtiger doesn't have any animations for it. And as I've said before, the real heavy that comes with Elite Armor is the fully pimped Tiger II, which can make excellent use of the Panzer Commander as it gives up to 68 sight range with Spearhead on.
I assume there's still no chance of the Sturmtiger being moved to a doctrine that might actually benefit from it (Whatever that might be), and being replaced in EA with something a little more synergistic, though? I get that there's this idea that "Not every ability needs to be good", but I'm not sure that EA would be OP with a "real" fifth ability/unit. |
I agree, but this is what happens if a Soviet player counter picks PPSh Cons. You lose engagements unless you transition to Obers. For this purpose you need to sacrifice Volkds to free the POP.
The MP40 Volks do have some perks like the smoke and the nade, but they do lack the punch of other CQC squads. Closest relative would actually be assault Grens I assume.
Really, the fact that you're heavily incentivised to lose squads as OKW is my biggest gripe with the faction at the moment. Rather than just being fairly weak infantry with no particular role: Volks really should get a very concrete role/upgrade path, and Obers really should arrive soon enough that they can actually fill infantry slots, rather than almost mandatorily requiring that you lose a Volk at some point in order to replace them with an Ober. I honestly don't see any reason you shouldn't be able to build Obers after the first truck (at a lower power level, obviously).
Incidentally; If the argument is that it doesn't matter if one CQC squad wins against another, I would have to assume that buffing MP40 Volks so that they walk all over PPSH cons wouldn't be something anyone would have a problem with. |
Depends on the skill of the user, in the hand a noob it would made difference in that hand of pro one might not even notice.
So that's a "Yes, it's a disadvantage", then?
"1. Obviously having to switch between two shell modes to get good AI or good AT is a disadvantage compared to a tank who has the same AI and AT values combined in one standard shell. I do think this is out of question."
This is a factual statement. If the Sherman had a single round that combined the strength of both the HE and AP shells it possesses, this would be a buff. Ergo: The fact it needs to switch between two shell types is a disadvantage.
If you're looking to attack the idea of buffing the 76 Sherman's non HVAP shell, look for a different vector than trying to argue that shell-switching is not a disadvantage.
|
Nope, that does not make sense. If that was the case then adding Sherman's HE to the Easy8 would be a nerf.
It simply would not be a nerf it would be a buff.
Sherman 75mm gives the player the option to use the best AI shell than any medium has, Sherman 76mm has the option to use the very powerful HAVP round AT round.
That is simply not a disadvantage since it allow these units to punch above level.
Finnaly there is even less logic to use the existence of HAVP rounds a reason to buff the AOE of AP rounds as general_gawain has done.
You are misunderstanding the point entirely, and I'm not sure why.
Having to switch between different shells (With the associated delay) before you can use them is clearly a disadvantage. Please answer my question:
Would the Sherman be stronger if it retained both its shell types, but automatically switched (instantly) between them dependent on what would be optimal in a given situation? Yes Or No.
Nobody is saying that the Sherman is underpowered due to this, the shell-switching disadvantage is included as part of the tank's balance, due to it having two exceedingly good shell types. The two strong shell types are an advantage, the fact you have to manually switch between them is a disadvantage.
"Nope, that does not make sense. If that was the case then adding Sherman's HE to the Easy8 would be a nerf. " is a non sequitur and has absolutely nothing to do with the argument. You seem to not quite understand what is meant by "disadvantage", perhaps this is a language-barrier issue.
Example: The Sherman having lower armour than, say, the PIV, is also a disadvantage, even if both tanks are balanced. Relative strength isnt important.
|
That is also misleading, the argument could only hold some water if the switchable shell where only AI or only AT and at the same power level as the all around shells (similar to ISU).
When Sherman 75mm switches to HE it does not get "good AI" it get one of the best AI shells and punches above its cost/class, the same goes for 76mm HAVP in AT.
What you are painting it misleading picture. Both 75mm and 76mm Sherman are very good tanks and the fact the they can switch shell does not make them under perform. It part of their strength, not part their weakness. A single shell combining those properties would be simply be broken.
The fact that they have to switch shells at all is a disadvantage, regardless of how strong either shell is. That's the entire argument. The Sherman's AP and HE shells are both extremely good, but the fact there's a delay between being able to use one or the other (and the mere fact you have to manually switch) is undeniably a disadvantage. This disadvantage is counteracted by the fact that the HE and AP shells are stronger than average, but it's still a present disadvantage.
If they switched instantly, and were switched automatically dependent on the target then this would be a buff to the unit, wouldn't you agree? If you do agree, then you agree that manual shell switching is, in fact, disadvantageous.
What you're stating is rather more misleading than what Gawain was stating to begin with. This really didnt need to go on for quite so long. |
I'm just wondering why the white phosphorus shot was nerfed on the dozer sherman because it was too strong against its """""""hard counter"""""" the ATG. Whats good for the goose is never good for the gander with balance team lmao.
I mean, this would be meaningful if the Brummbar had an equivalent to the WP shell, but it doesnt, so I'm not sure why this is a "goose/gander" situation, really. When was the 105's WP shell changed, anyway? I can't say I recall.
Also: The 105 sherman was buffed in the Commander Patch to improve its performance vs ATGs through improving its "barrage" ability to 70 range, and providing it with an extra shell in said barrage. This implies to me that this type of unit is indeed intended to not be countered by ATGs. |
Who is talking about cloning the tiger?
Even if Pershing were a clone of the tiger, it would not abuse anything. The pop limit is 100, not 300 that you can put a blob of rifles with double bars in front of it and 3 TDs behind it and paks to support it and AA HT to deal with aircraft and echelons to repair it and 50 cal to suppress...
Jackson being the best TD is subjective. I consider JP4 to be the best TD. Jackson is definitely the most mobile one, but JP4 supported by a KT with obers around it is quite strong (low target size + high armour + great ROF).
Wait, you consider the JP4 the "best" TD? It certainly has good survivability and good RoF... but this is kind of counteracted by the severe lack of penetration relative to other TDs, meaning it struggles vs higher-armour vehicles. It's mostly intended to fight other TDs, survivability is generally not a hugely important factor when used in a generic TD role (as a TD is generally not meant to be trading blows), but the JP4's statistics make it very capable of manfighting opposing Tank Destroyers.
The Panther is still OKW's "Tank Destroyer", honestly. The JP4 is a bit of an odd unit. I like the thing, but I'd hardly call it a better TD than the Jackson or SU-85, which both do the "kill heavy vehicles" thing rather more effectively.
(It also has what I'd call a weaker veterancy ability. The SU-85s self-spotting is absolutely fantastic, and the Jackson's HVAP is ludicrously good).
EDIT: More on topic:
Honestly I'd argue that the Pershing should stop trying to fit into the "Heavy tank" bracket entirely. I don't think USF as a faction particularly suits a traditional "heavy" tank, it would be better if the Pershing had its' cap removed, a price reduction, and turned into some sort of Premium Medium-styled vehicle. This would also allow it to receive a vehicle crew without the room for abuse.
I'll admit that I don't know exactly what statline the Pershing would have in this capacity... USF already have a plethora of medium vehicle options. Perhaps it's worth considering, though?
|
[code][/code]
I have zero motivation to enable your pedantic streak. An "anti tank" gun is a counter to "tanks". If you want to argue hard, soft, flimsy, flaccid, have at it general V.
ATG are an infantry-based counter to vehicles. They're therefore very vulnerable to AI solutions, which is primarily also infantry borne, but it also means they are, by design, vulnerable to AI vehicles. The Brummbar is a vehicle that is solely geared around fighting infantry, which includes both AT infantry, and ATGs. It doesn't have vehicular-combat capability (Beyond the incidental. Mild micro from an opponent means that even an AEC can defeat a Brummbar quite handily), and it has very short range for a tank, coupled with the lack of a turret.
ATG are the "glass cannon" unit type, they're an extremely cost-efficient counter to vehicles due to the fact they don't cost fuel (And in most cases, don't require MU either), and that they outrange most vehicles.
Rocket Artillery beats ATGs as well, despite (in all cases but the LM) also being vehicle-based. It's really not quite as clear cut as "ATGs are the defined counter for all Vehicles (Or even "tanks" if you'd like to get really specific)", the fact they're called "Anti-tank" guns really shouldn't be part of the argument.
All of this is leading up to me saying that ATGs really aren't the hard counter to a Brummbar. Tank Destroyers are. This isnt to say that ATGs can't do quite well vs the Brummbar, though: If you have them apart (but supporting one another) the Brummbar is going to have a very unpleasant time, especially if you have any other sort of AT platform alongside, which could well simply be a medium tank. |
When you are so annoying that you are pissing off the blacks, it helps having a lawyer around. Note that this was the only time (IIRC) that this route was remotely considered in +9 years that this site has been around.
Most functional adults and even kids understand that, at the end of the day this is just a hobby/game and this place is a fan site owned by a group of individuals that have no direct responsibility links with Relic Entertainment. And if for whatever reason they showed you the exit door, it's no different that any commercial place reserving their right of admission.
I'm surprised he isnt just HWID or IP banned. I doubt he's smart enough to circumvent either. |
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
