I agree with you on all accounts, I'm just saying that if it IS to remain coupled, both should be grens not pgrens due to accessibility.
Grens are the only lads that can be skipped so there COULD be value found there in fast teching pgrens and using the HT with grens to afford you a snare a little later.
Its possible to not have access to grens (though it's not hard to get em ileven if you did skip T1) but it's impossible to not have access to pgrens is all I'm sayin.
Ah, fair enough. I can see your point, though I do hope they just outright change all these abilities to not be bundles. Even if they did change both to Grens (Which I would agree to be an "improvement"), the benefit in a tiny minority of cases is still far outweighed by the negatives in the vast majority of cases.
Don't you need Tier 1 up to have access to the Grenadier's Panzerfaust, by the way? If so, you're still going to have to build tier 1 to be able to really use the Grens you get from the HT callins, so it's not even a huge benefit in THAT scenario. |
I wouldn't be worried, AoE2DE went off without a hitch and the UI screenshots look exactly like any other PC RTS.
Sure, though AoEIIDE was a remaster, not a new game. It wasn't by Relic or on the Xbox, either.
I'm tentatively hopeful AoEIV will be good, but we will just have to wait and see. I don't think my concerns are /totally/ unfounded.
|
Hmm, good point, I stand corrected. It can be indeed considered a bug.
This however brings up a similar issue and I'm not sure if it can be adressed or not: some squads (typically officers) feature multiple weapons (like a pistol and several rifles, carbines or smgs) and when they pick up dropped weapons it is random which model carries it. Now optimally it should replace the pistol wielded by the officer model, but many times that's not the case, I wonder if priorities could be given in this situation.
I definitely agree with that, It would be nice if the "worst" weapon were always replaced with an upgrade, rather than it being on a first-come first-serve basis. Weapons like the LT. and CPT. Thompsons should also never be replaced with a weapon pickup as long as there are models in the squad with Garands, and should immediately be switched out for Thompsons when the squad is reinforced again.
Is there functionality for weapons changing hands in a squad like that? |
I still don't think it's a bug, rather a balance question. Open a separate thread about it if we want to discuss it any further.
Personally I would only put G43s on storms if I wanted a frontline utility unit (smokes nades), othwerise I just keep the MP40s for the high dps on surprise attacks. G43s on panzergrens is generally a better choice imo.
I mean, it's clearly a bug. The squad was upgraded with one weapon upgrade (to MP40s), retains one MP40 if then upgraded to G43s, and then "loses" it if a model subsequently dies.
Whether or not you might consider having K98s to be "Better" than MP40s for whatever purpose isnt really the question, it's whether a squad's loadout should change if a model is killed and then reinforced (Excepting weapon drops, of course), and I think the answer to that would clearly be "no".
Either have the G43 upgrade give the fourth squad member a K98 when they're upgraded, or don't have the MP40 be "lost" when a model dies. The currently situation isnt intuitive at all. |
Funny enough, I think they should be the gren one, not the pgren one and I'll tell ya why:
Pgrens are inevitable.
Grens are skipable.
Just like the guard halftrack is meh because you can just build the HT, you can build pgrens even if you decided to skip all buildings but t4
the grens also iirc come with a lmg, so the lost manpower is gained by munitions (in the pgren v gren HTs)
One might also consider 5 man grens, or storm troopers, but pgrens is the last thing I'd like to see in the HT, because like I said, if you want em... Just build em
The issue is more that you
A: Don't always want Grens or Pgrens in certain builds, so even the initial HT could well give you an unit you simply do not need/want when all you are really desiring is the HT.
B: If you want to rebuild the HT for any reason you are /forced/ into having an extra infantry squad alongside.
All nondoc units come singly, not paired with some other unit, for precisely these reasons. The only nondoctrinal equivalent to this is the USF officers granted from tech, and the Balance team realised that this limits people, and so gave USF the Transfer Orders ability.
Honestly, another solution would be to just give /every/ faction the ability to force their own units to leave the field, then you could keep the bundles, but allow a player to tell the extra squad to fuck off. I'm not 100% on why this isnt already available to all factions. |
It wouldn't surprise me if it comes to the Xbox, Microsoft has been pushing for platform integration and better keyboard and mouse support for their console. That said, they release literally all of their "gaming" news on their Xbox accounts including pc related news. I wouldn't read too much into it.
An RTS (Or, really, any previously PC exclusive game/franchise) getting a console release is admittedly a little concerning. Perhaps it won't affect AoEIV negatively, given the improved KMB support for the new Xbox, but i'm still a little worried it's going to cause the game to be simplified.
Guess we'll have to wait and see on the (10th?). |
Command P4 will be addressed in the upcoming patch.
I'm interested in seeing what changes you guys have in store for the thing. I know exactly what I'd like to happen with it, but I'm expecting mostly number tweaks.
Can we expect to see any preliminary patchnotes in the nearish future, or is there still a lot of iteration/design work to do before you guys are even closed to finished with the Commander Patch? I always love reading through the notes.
That's the reason that i think swapping the PG for a Gren would make more sense for the Assault Gren commander and you can usually skip T1.
I don't have the timings in my head, but i think the Pio flamer is still a better option regardless of having AssG.
Ehhhh, I'd still really rather they just did away with "bundle" abilities like that. It's terribly limiting to force you to receive an unit you simply do not want in order to get one that you do. The fact they gave USF Transfer Orders last patch leads me to believe the Balans Teem is in agreement, and we might see these poorly designed abilities be reworked. |
Just to add some facts to your point of view. Compare to Luchs, would come pretty much at the same time if we would bind the Greyhound to tech. So the units would have to directly compete with each other on the battlefield.
Luchs (vs Greyhound)
- nondoctrinal
- same AI damage as upgraded 50.cal Greyhound
- has slightly less speed and slightly more armor
- beats Greyhound in 1vs1
- detects camouflaged infantry at about 20 range (Greyhound has to stand directly in front of the unit)
- has 10 sight less but gets camouflage movement at Vet1, turning it into a even stronger recon vehicle
- costs less: 265MP + 60 FU compared to 280 MP + 60 Fu + 60 MU
I don't get the idea how Greyhound could be too strong for its timing if Luchs is already stronger at the same time and doesn't bind you to one commander... explain please with added facts/stats
I agree that the Greyhound should be buffed/changed, but you can't simply point to a similar unit in a totally different faction and expect it to be a fantastic point of comparison. Individual units within a faction can't /really/ be compared directly to other individual units in a different faction, there's more to it than that.
That said, again, I do agree the Greyhound should absolutely be changed significantly. I still like the idea of it being able to dig in to act as a mini-AT gun/provide MG suppression, while also providing Paras with a mobile beacon to reinforce from. It'd be a rather unique niche for it to fill. |
but it also effects other factions with the ability to convert ambient buildings, this is in my opinion bad map design as it leads to frustrating moments. If the Soviet forward HQ is broken then it should be fixed by rebalancing it.
As far as I know the only other faction with the ability to convert an ambient building is UKF with their doctrinal "Observation post" ability, so it's not really a widespread concern.
Also: You're right, FHQ should be rebalanced. That hasnt happened though, and we can but hope we see it changed in the upcoming Commander Patch. Making some map structures off-limits to the ability is the only available stopgap until that happens. |
1. uncle play games
2. he live with uncle(!) and play on same computer
what a bunch of nonsense
either lies or they are 2 imb***ls. More likely - both his accounts for cheating (1)freely and (2)stealthily
In other game top player was permabanned from tournaments just FOR INSTALLING (not using it once) "cheat engine" (you responsible for shit you have on your comp). In game it was a month ban of new account. (first one for 130$ was closed too). 2nd account was allowed bc he is openly steaming it 40+ hours per week.
Here is known long time cheater who is not getting kicked. He will simply return with new name to abuse fair players.
Only appologies are needed to those who played against this trash
In what game was someone banned for having CheatEngine installed on their computer? That seems a rather draconian decision.
CheatEngine is just a hex editing tool, despite the name (and what most people do use it for) it isnt /inherently/ just for cheating. |
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
