So how many patches will there be before the final?
The final version of this patch? I would imagine at least one more update, but possibly several more. Either way, the earliest I would expect this patch to be released is the end of the month.
Only more I have to say on Riflemen snares is that there's nothing wrong with them. Vet 1 requirement is fine, vet 3 range bonus is also fine
Just because some squads don't get the same range bonus doesn't mean it's OP...
If USF is too good right now, I don't think it's cause Riflemen vet 3 bonus
Pretty much this. The Vet 1 requirement is completely fine, as is the vet 3 range bonus, imo. Axis can't field any LVs (that aren't extremely vulnerable to small arms) before a USF player has at least one vet 1 squad, so the requirement is basically pointless. Meanwhile, once USF does hit mid-game, they can give those rifles AT weapons, meaning they can both snare and destroy vehicles by themselves, something no non-doc Axis squad can do.
I'll share you on a lil secret, but don't tell anyone.
it doesn't, stealth T0 ATG does the job just fine if you're not in denial about it, most of my M3s were lost to it, because I didn't expected okw player to actually field a proper counter early and expected them just to whine OP as usual
Yea, as KoRneY pointed out, this is a pretty bad idea. Also the Rak doesn't stealth at Vet 0 anymore.
With regards to the debate and vote on balancing heavies. Is the biggest problem currently not the Tiger I from the new OKW doctrine?
At least in 1v1 it seems that 90-95% of players use this doctrine which is never a good sign. So perhaps in spite of all other changes being made, something should be done here to make this viable but not dominating. I'm leaning towards making the full tech requirement just like with a KT, but I'm open to have my mind changed.
I don't really see it as a problem with the Tiger or GO-commander; it's more of a combination of the current meta (60-TDs) and most of OKW's other commanders being pretty terrible in competitive play.
Deciding on which doc to go with should be a hard choice because each of them brings useful tools to the game; instead (a lot of the time) it's a hard choice because most of them are so mediocre. As a result, when a few are good (pre-nerf Luft/SpecOps, GO), they're used a lot. USF has the same problem, where Heavy Cav and Mechanized are used in about 80% of games (at least in WCS).
OST/Sov don't have this problem, and its mostly because of the "mistake" of flooding the game with so many similar doctrines.
Furthermore, what would actually be changed in the doc to make it less appealing when compared to other choices?
PF's are strong, but I wouldn't say they're OP (like Falls were). Nerfing PFs would also make other docs (Breakthrough) less useful.
Stuka Smoke is a fine ability; neither OP nor UP.
IR-STGs are an interesting side-grade for a non-doc unit, similar to M1919s for USF.
Panzer Commander is fairly underused, compared to an MG upgrade.
Tiger is a clone of the OST Tiger with the addition of the "command Tiger" ability added at vet 1 and 2. However, I don't see the "command" ability being the deciding factor; even if it was entirely removed, GO would still be used the vast majority of the time.
Since everyone seems against the whole "replace it with a Pak40" idea, the only other way I'd support removing retreat is if they fixed the horrendous crew spacing. Right now, especially in cover, the crew has a horrible tendency to blob together so tightly that a single Pak-Howitzer shot can drop the entire thing to ~10%.
I'd say it's almost exactly the opposite. Perfect mirror matches are almost always bad game design, unless it's driven by player choice (intentional mirror matches). I can't think of a single recent competitive game that isn't inherently designed around asymmetry.
CSGO
SC2 (many find mirror matches dull)
MOBAs (DOTA2, League of Legends, often use draft pick in competitive modes)
Fighting Games (i.e. Smash Ultimate, MK, etc. have a lot of 'counter picking').
Even old RTS games like AoE 1+2 (nation bonuses, unique tech)
The only truly competitive games that were entirely focused on symmetry I can think of are ~20 year old 'Arena Shooter' type games (i.e. Quake), and those have massively dropped in popularity.
I'm not sure if this is a known issue, but I just ran into it for the first time. On Poltawa, the neutral buildings near the middle VP aren't identical, and actually give a noticeable advantage to the "south" (bottom left) player(s) in certain cases.
The difference between the north and south buildings is that the south ones have an upper floor window. When an MG is garrisoned into these buildings, it can setup in that upper floor window and fire across the LOS blocking fences, provided another unit is giving line of sight. The north buildings however, since they lack an upper floor, cannot offer this line of fire.
Essentially, the LOS blocking fences in Poltawa's center only work one way, which probably isn't fair (or intended).
The thing is (not sure post preview patch heavy reworks) the IS2 doesn't need the extra range to work. The unit is not bad at vet 0 to vet 2, while mostly facing TD which are on the 50 range. The 60 range one is the JPIV and that is mostly an anti medium/TD.
Improve the vet 1 shell range/performance at vet 2 for all that it matters if you replace the extended range. Inclusiveor the MG upgrade.
It doesn't necessarily need the range buff, but it'll probably help with the transition to 'no vet range buff'. Right now every other heavy is at 45 range, and they gain +5 at vet 2, bringing them to 50. The IS2 starts at 40 range, but gains "+20%" (i.e. +10) at vet 2, bringing it to 50 range as well. By standardizing them all to 45, we compensate the IS2's loss of a bigger vet bonus by giving it a minor buff.
Also, it's just nice to have everything similar when making big adjustments. If a 45-range IS2 turns out to be OP, it could easily be brought back down to 40.
0
Doomlord52
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
