MG seems to be shooting the strat point. I don't think it's the suppression change you're seeing so much as a weird fringe case where it's not actually hitting the squad very much.
After an Ostheer game or two, I'm not having any trouble getting suppression to work if an already set-up MG engages at decent range with a spotter, and it punishes well enough if you bait a unit into the MG arc. Unlike the claims of Panzerjager etc, I've had a maxim move into MG-42 arc and it got suppressed instantly and had to retreat. It's much more fun and engaging for me using it as a support unit and thinking of sneaky ways to bait a Soviet player into the range, and considering firing lines, cover and LOS and things than it was pre-patch.
By contrast, when a decent Soviet player uses shotblockers to approach, or catches one set up and skips past, I have to get out of there rather than just pinning and forcing those conscripts off. Also, when molotov'd in a building or barraged outside of one there's no sticking around, which is a nice change.
It wasn't perfect, but people like to think CA is capable of improvement. Maybe they're wrong. The reason I don't think looking back to Rome requires rose-tinted glasses:
1. Rome added more features than it removed from Medieval (and it removed a fair few). This isn't true of Rome II; it removed more than it added.
2. Rome was very moddable and supported some spectacular overhauls in its lifespan. This won't be true of Rome II.
3. Rome was the first real 3D game they did and the first on its engine. Rome II is CA's 7th game in the same series and the 3rd on the same engine.
The recipe was there for CA to put out its best game yet - I'm one of the believers that Shogun 2 was CA's most polished release yet. Then they take 3 giant steps back. Whether because of lack of effort, lack of funds (too much into marketing...) or because of Sega driving it out the door.
Ironically, what Rome and Rome II do have in common is overhyped and overpromised pre-Alpha footage that justifiably left many people turned off on release day.
2 and 3 are very true, and why I think RTW still receives so much praise.
I think Rome generally lost a lot of the features of Medieval (glorious goals, different start dates, titles, ransoms, religions, succession struggles, faction reemergence, emergent factions) but it did add a fair few. I'm not actually sure which has more features. My personal favourite bug on it was that up until the 1.6 patch a protectorate/vassal would actually receive most of the funds of its protector rather than the other way around... I've no idea how they managed to keep that one in so long. I'd agree that Shogun 2 might just be their most polished to date.
Personally I just wish they'd release some compatibility patches for their old games (especially Medieval), so I could just play them instead. Bit cynical of them to continue selling them in various editions knowing they don't operate on modern computers.
So much better for so many reasons post-patch. In particular, MGs in buildings are now good but not kiss-of-death insta-pin, massive area deniers and unapproachable with the bulletin.
I feel like the suppression might use a small buff, though I think we've also got to wait for people to start using them properly again to see if it's effective enough, but it's better to work up to a good level from here than the previously game-wrecking MG-42. Right now I feel an MG really needs a screening and spotting unit, which is a really nice change. I think MG micro should be back a bit, in that the target switching has been made slower.
As an Ostheer player, I can no longer rely on setting up once I've seen a unit with an unsupported MG, which is a big improvement. As a Soviet, I can deal with MGs in buildings without needing a clown car, can take a burst at long range and backpedal, can flank before molotovs arrive if the Ostheer player messes up. Just a huge improvement onthe early game.
The bigger difference for me hasn't so much been games against relatively good players but rather games against MG spammers, which were previously infuriating but are now very easy to punish an MG spammer by outplaying them, flanking etc, which wasn't the case pre-patch, and sitting an MG by itself is no longer the massive area denial tool it was pre-patch either.
My favourite thing about this circus is people who are holding up the first Rome as an example of excellence. It was definitely the right direction for the total war games as a whole and it was definitely fun but as a whole game, it was massively shallower than Medieval, had some terrible bugs that lasted for years despite supposed fixes (units fighting to death in sieges, the memory leaking etc etc), featured very quickly over battles thanks to low morale (which apparently are back, after they spent six games making the battles longer again), had terrible AI on the battle map and even worse AI on the campaign map (it just could not cope with the freedom yet, really), weaker diplomacy and much more AI cheating, radically worse implementation of rebels, almost no balance and very differing amounts of detail and playability between the factions, very sketchy historical research (triariEYE, for instance...), bugs everywhere, units not functioning as intended, shallower economics, no building trees, no glorious achievements mode, no province-specific bonuses for certain units, no succession struggles for late-game interest. But at least there were big steps forward graphically and in terms of the engine and the possibilities for improvement were there, and the factions had enough flavour to cope with it. What I will say for that game is that the modding community was just amazing. The number of incredible total conversions onto a game with a really restrictive set of hardcoded limits was astounding.
I suspect Rome 2 is more or less the same sort of thing. It'll be a better game than it is in six months and much less broken, hopefully, but in terms of systems it sounds like they've made another step back they'll spend the next few games slowly working around. It's a shame the total war games are less mod friendly than they used to be. Also a shame about the day 1/preorder DLC as opposed to when Rome came out and you'd just fuck around with text files to make Pontus and Numidia playable.
I assume Relic know what they are doing though, and give them the benefit of the doubt with only one reservation. If it was so balanced, why change it...
I think what they were explaining on the stream was that it was about the overkill. So, previously the gren rifle would take 4 good hits to kill an infantry/support team member. With the +25% damage buff, it'd result in grens overkilling maxims or mortar members and wasting a lot of their damage (in that they'd still take 4 shots). Making it more consistent over time better balances that matchup out.
1 shot from p4 killing 2 man from Zis, 1 shot from t34 kill 1 guy from Pak - they not survival, its same.
But reload...
Like i say - main function of AT guns it's kill the tanks!!!
Why Pak faster i'm dont understand...
I see like one Ostwind killing two ZiS in forward and go away.
The T-70 and T-34 fire faster, are a bit nimbler and much more accurate than a P-IV, so I tend to find PAKs just get decrewed much more quickly and have a really hard time keeping vet. In addition to Soviet T3 having more tanks. The main function of the AT gun is area denial for tanks, really. The ZiS does that really well *if* it's supported. Even against an Ostwind it does OK normally, most of the time.
Not saying PAKs are bad or anything but they are either against very hard AI tanks or T4, which can just stay out of range and they don't have much in the way of light vehicles to threaten. In the context of both the sides' vehicles, I think the ZiS tends to be more helpful.
I prefer the ZiS personally. The higher number of crewmen makes tanks much less likely to decrew them, which in turn makes it more reliable AT under normal circumstances (overlapping ZiS guns are very decent AT). Also easier to vet up, and to keep on the field with merge. The Barrage is a very strong tool as well.
The PAK's vet ability is awesome but I find it practically a bit lackluster against the things it needs to kill a lot of the time. T-70s will flank and decrew it, T-34s will often decrew it, IS-2s will decrew it, KV-8s will decrew it. SU-85s with the bulletin outrange it and can often destroy the gun. ZiS vet ability is less powerful but still quite nice.
My point was going for KV8 as Soviet commander, leaves you highly vulnerable to Armor. You still need to tech up to SU85's and shocks and conscripts aren't much of alternative. (you just spent 135 fuel with no real AT capabilities elsewhere, only counter for KV8 is armor. To me that is simple as 1+1=2 possible winners.
Do your damage with KV8 or type in GG)
Pulling something of KV8 capabilities, from German tier 4 with superb AT Double shreck PG's and supported by HMG. I can't see how else would that end up but GG............
You need SU85 as counter to brumbar (with KV8 capabilities) and SU85 has hard counter already on the field PG's. 1+1-1=1 winner only
In my opinion would just completely break balance....
I don't at all see how something coming from a high tier, expensive building is more powerful/less risky than getting it as an off-map, is all I was saying. Again, it's better than a Brummbar at almost everything (except AT, but even then, Brummbar AT is pretty mediocre and Brummbar armour is much worse) but much cheaper and doesn't require tech buildings. Just doesn't seem to fit in at all with the cost of comparably powerful, heavily-armoured vehicles.
Going straight to KV-8 is a bit risky, but slipping it into a T2-T3 or even a Shocks-T2-T4 build is very viable and not a huge investment (20 fuel and 40 manpower more than an Ostwind, say) and on account of the low cost and high damage it only really doesn't pay itself back if it's lost really quickly. It also absolutely requires tanks to counter it, whereas a Brummbar, which is much more expensive, you can push off with 2 AT guns if you have to.
Because Brummbar comes into well rounded German default tier, having something as powerful as KV8 in German arsenal, would make it invincible. Soviet commanders are designed around call-in troops, much easier to balance commanders.
Imagine buffed up Brummbar that kills infantry at will, combined with double shreck PG's, vs conscripts, shock and SU85's.... You would have to redesign entire Soviet Army to balance game.......
Um, I'm kind of skeptical of that argument to be honest. The Brummbar seems to have less anti-infantry power, less armour and less health than the KV-8, pretty similar speed, still costs *way* more and requires you to research and build the T4 building and wait for the unit to build as well, hence requiring a ton more investment in fuel, manpower and time.
I'd say a Brummbar is a much higher risk unit than the KV-8, requires better control to get much out of it, and is much less effective. A KV-8 in German tier 4 would probably be higher-risk unit than the KV-8 as a Soviet call-in, though it would also be just monstrously powerful.
The rest of the KV-8 doctrines aren't great, but they both A) need some rebalancing on their own terms (so, shocks, for instance are a bit cheaper now, IS-2 is much improved) and B) they aren't *that* bad, tbh. It just seems like the cost of the KV-8, for the armour, and the damage, and the health, and the call-in status, should be higher and should really promote having to try hard to get your investment back. Right now, trading one for a P-IV or Ostwind is fine, killing a few infantry squads then throwing it away is normally not too bad for your situation, baserushing and killing a few things then losing it stupidly is fine if it doesn't get abandoned, since it'll force off Ostheer map control.
Caillou
rndorian
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
