I don't think the problem is the Penals, I think the problem is a combination of the player's not-yet-matured understanding of how to utilize this unit, and T1's role in general.
We have had this game for almost a year now and the penals have barely changed at all. I'm sure most players have a very good understanding of the unit now.
I personnaly have been using the unit for a while now, but most the effect I get out of it is simply because it's different then what most german players are used to and I can surprize them. I don't think there is anything wrong with their effectiveness, but the truth is that they simply are not worth the same initial cost as pgrens and snipers, and the unit is hardly worth calling in at that cost past the early game. |
versatile[ vur-suh-tl or, esp. British, -tahyl ]
adjective
1. capable of or adapted for turning easily from one to another of various tasks, fields of endeavor, etc.: a versatile writer.
2. having or capable of many uses: a versatile tool.
3. attached at or near the middle so as to swing freely, as an anther.
Where is soviets versatile, beening restricted to tech builds like t2 to t3, t1 to t4 or vice vercer is not versatile. Then having to use commanders to fill in the gaps because of you teching choices is not versatile.
Soviets are the best due to their ease of use and versatility, Germans are the best if you can micro well and have a good build-order (which nullifies the Soviet advantage).
Wait, what? Your last paragraph contradicts the others. |
|
What the hell guys. This was a simple issue that they should change. Saying "Just use another doctrine" is kind of annoying. |
Why choose this while Partisan is much better as a trolling doctrine?
It's pretty good doctrine. It has a totally different purpose then partisans. This is more of strong general infantry type of doctrine. Irregulars are pretty good with their grenades and LMGs. They are a good alternative to cons that give up durability for firepower. Except it's ruined since if you field a lot of them you don't get as much from rapid conscription. |
|
There is a small problem with the irregular call-ins. They don't gain the effects of rapid conscription. If this was intended it doesn't quite make sense. Why penalize a player for using one ability by constricting the use of another. At the moment it's really messing with the flow of this commander. Is this simply an oversight since they were built off the pre-multiplayer partisans? |
|
You should add soviet AT camo. It fires on infantry and undoes the camo and the crew also fire on anything in range giving up camo. It's pretty damn useless, btw does anyone know if it does any more damage then usual when it actually manages to fire out of camo? |
I'd like to see minor eastern front powers, like Romania, Hungary, and possibly even Finland. Hell, why not even the Spanish Blue Division and the Italian 8th Army.
Romania and Hungary would surely qualify, they had significant impact. Both could even be played for either faction.
Mostly it's because they don't use enough of their own units, mostly stuff that's already in game. I doubt they would create a whole faction simply for TOW, it would probably be part of a new expansion. |
Thread: Goodbye2 Mar 2014, 14:41 PM
They are a lot more balanced now, but there have been at least 4 different paid commanders that just raped face for about month or so when they were released (Tiger Ace was broken for almost 3 months I think). Average player count has taken a pretty big hit since then too. The first two OP commanders where at least temperarely fixed in about a week though. |
You are wrong, it is one shot one squad wipe, even happens in retreating squad. If any squad survive that shell is just the blessing of RNG God. Like the old IL-2, but the Soviet fans would just say, OMFG, THAT TANK IS MORE EXPENSIVE THAN TIGER BUT CAN'T WIN THE CAT, IT IS FINE.
Just get elite doctrine and vet yourself a big vetted StuG / Pak40 wall, then laugh at the steel coffin IS2 by shooting target weak point again and again.
Well it IS more expensive then a tiger, but loses to it. What do you think it should get for that extra cost? Nothing? |
Thread: Ram 2 Mar 2014, 14:28 PM
For everyone claiming that there is no AT in T3, I have no trouble using T34s backed by ZiS guns and conscripts for AT nade snares. It plays almost exactly like Americans from vCoH. I never expect a Sherman to go head to head with a Panther, but he screens my ATguns from infantry while the ATgun threatens the armor.
Ram is a stupid extra gimmick that I would be fine with simply removing, but in the bigger interest I would like to see it changed to something more enjoyable. I agree putting all the AT and all the AI in separate tiers was kind of a dumb move, I'd rather see T70 and SU76 swapped so you can get heavy AI + light AT (T3) or light AI and heavy AT (T4).
This is in 1v1 and 2v2. I suspect lack of mobile tank AT is much more of an issue in larger games, though.
The difference was that US T4 also had the M10, which could definetly punish the panthers and tigers if used well. The russians instead get a T70. The US get a reliable AT gun while the Russians get a slow-firing zis.
I like the SU-76 idea for other reasons, but that is even worse then a t34 since it can't even flank. You are forced to use the zis which can't be aggresive, are easily flanked, and are very EASILY destroyed by panzerwerfers, mortar halftracks, or one of the MANY off map call-ins. There is a reason you never see anyone win with only AT guns and that is what you are dooming T3 soviets to if ram is removed.
Edit: Also forgot to mention that the US had good AT infantry which the soviets have none of. |
Omega_Warrior
Freedom.Kite(?)
Relic Entertainment
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
