|
The 60 fuel price tag makes it a one-trick pony. Either you hold it, cut your opponent off and win within 10-15 minutes, or you don't and your entire doctrine is worthless, with no late-game whatsoever and you lose.
Personally, I'd make it take time to build (with the process cancelled by the squad inside leaving/dying) and be available in neutral or friendly territory. In exchange, lower its fuel cost (to, say, 30) so that, instead of the doctrine relying on getting one fortress on your opponent's cutoff, you can maybe build a few of them to act as strong points all over the map. Strummingbird's ideas could also work, he just takes the concept further I suppose.
The goal, really, is not to nerf it but to make it less of an all-in semi-cheese doctrine. You really either win with your FHQ, or lose it and then you're absolutely fucked. I would prefer if it offered the Soviet player the option to seize and keep map control. The doctrine not even having something as basic as the PPSh for scaling doesn't help either. |
|
Fuel upkeep seems like a good idea TBH. |
Well tbh I'm not so disappointed by their performances, if bazookas are not panzerschrecks, I count bars as good infantry weapons, the difference between a bar equiped and a non equiped squad are quite obvious. From this point of view I would exchange lmg grenadiers on bar equiped rifles any day.
Like, seriously? You must be joking. You'd exchange the best upgrade in the game, an absolute no brainer that every single Ostheer player gets as soon as possible, for a marginal DPS upgrade that costs fuel to unlock?
Like others have said, at this point I wonder if you're even playing the game at all. Your posts quite simply do not reflect reality. |
|
BARs need a cost decrease (40-45 ammo) and should be OK from there. The upgrade is decent, it's just overpriced for what it gives you.
Zookas, however, need their nerfs from last patch gone at least, if not additional buffs on top of that, as well as a slight price reduction. They were already barely seen before the nerfs, after them I literally saw 0 US players buy them other than on captains or M20 crews. It's completely not worth it to fork over fuel and ammo for an AT weapon that's too inaccurate to hit any light vehicle at more than point blank range and has too low penetration to be a threat to anything bigger than a Ostwind. |
1v1 Win Rates were OKW>Soviets>Ostheer>USF
with the % being 69.8/68.7/68.2/62.3
Ah, misread that, thanks. Makes sense that USF is the worst, you either win early game or you, well, don't. Them largely getting nerfs in the last patch doesn't help, as well as the Konigskubel idiocy.
Soviets are also strong at all levels of play, if you use cookie cutter builds. |
|
The graph follows my experience. 1v1 is rather balanced, with OKW as the strongest faction and Ostheer as the weakest, albeit not by much. 2v2 is OK, OKW starts to dominate, Ostheer is good, Soviets are good, US start to really struggle. 3v3 and up is a clear Axis advantage as while Ostheer becomes stronger and OKW stays top tier, US is basically a waste of space in anything bigger than 2v2. |
Moving .50cal to T0 while replacing its vet sprint with AP rounds (the MG42 kind rather than the horrible DSHK version) would do a hell of a lot to help both USF early game variety, vulnerability to cheese and viability of this unit.
Then they could implement the M2 60mm or M1 81mm mortar team (which already exist in the gamefiles so adding them should be relatively trivial, compared to creating an entirely new unit) into the lieutenant tier and USF would suddenly look a lot more well rounded...
I do think it's the best solution. An MG that you need to unlock with 50 fuel, and a sub-par AND overpriced one at that, is just not attractive. There are very few situations where I built one and wouldn't have been better served by more rifles, or saving the MP for vehicles.
Plus, US needs some early game variety. Having to build 4x rifles before anything else is just boring for everyone involved. The MG could also fix the US's incredible vulnerability to the Kubel somewhat. |
|
I still think the LMG's weapon design, AKA high damage at all ranges with virtually no downsides except to be immobile (which ain't no real downside since all infantry loses DPS on the move except SMGs if I recall correctly) is a bad one. IMO LMGs should be crap at long range (no accuracy), become really good at mid-range, and be killer at close range. Cover should also be more effective vs them than against any other weapon, forcing you to use them well. Let semi-automatic rifles be the best long range small arm.
Currently LMG infantry can easily rack up 20-30 kills by just a-moving in the general direction of anything that's not as leet as them. This requires basically no micro and is extremely effective against anything but dedicated AI vehicles or ambushes by close range troops. In my mind, they should mostly be effective at mid-range against infantry not in cover, making you use other means (grenades, close range troops, tanks) in order to flush the opponent out of it and then let it rip with the LMGs. As it stands LMG dps is so high cover doesn't really do much.
|
Just like in CoH, the first two factions are asymmetrical but still have rough equivelancies in core units, but then the next two factions are silly and gimmicky in many ways, lacking many core units.
Well, the WFA armies are nowhere near as bad as the Brits, and I thought the PE was a nice faction once the balance problems got sorted out.
But it's true that the new factions tend to be more gimmicky. Pity, the factions that were added in DOW2's xpacs were the most interesting, well rounded in the game, I thought Relic would follow up on that. |
|
Yeah, one of US's biggest weakness is the lack of key units. No heavy tanks I can stomach, but your only reliable artillery being doctrinal is a bit much. Especially since the Priest is more expensive and still worse than the Katyusha and Stuka (haven't used Pwerfer in ages).
As a result, US can have a very, very hard time breaking through a determined defense. Thus making them even more map-dependant than they should be. |
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
