Profile of The_Courier

I'd rather have a Jumbo. They were deployed in the war, and fit the meatshield design US needs more than the Pershing.

I just want my US Heavy Armor camo option to be useful at last. Every time I mouse over it and see an empty space I go .

Ahh I might mixed that up with the fact that reversing is as fast as driving forward.
Yet still doesn't that heavily break immersion, when a car is unable to hit the R gear?

You're talking about a game where tank combat happens at 50 meters and snipers can turn around, go prone and land a headshot in 2 seconds without fail.

Personally, the no reverse thing seems a bit much. It means it's pretty much always boned if compromised, especially with this game's pathing. I'm up for a fuel cost and an acceleration OR sight range decrease.

I was speaking generally, not about you, but about all whiners that since okw appeared they only claimed "this unit op, that unit op" without considering at all at this faction's architecture and why units are the way they are. And the result was far from balancing things. Actualy, okw was more balanced at the begginig as it is now. Well, I'm speaking in the wind,anyway.

It's not like some Axis players consider basically every Soviet has save Penals and Conscripts abuse, right? Bricks, glass houses and all that.

Besides, I'm pretty sure Relic are big boys and you can't blame their balance decisions on forum fanboys.

As for Falls, my only misgiving is that they come with a good weapon right out of the gate. Storms are a better example, they spawn behind lines with Kars, and get their good weapon after an upgrade so they're much less of an alpha strike squad. Falls however can spawn behind an MG or AT gun and decrew it almost instantly.

Still, of all the OKW's bevy of elite infantry, they're probably the least powerful.

I don't think you can call OKW's early game weak anymore. They have the two strongest early game units right off the bat with no tech or fuel cost, an AT gun to deal with any early armor. Only the volks are meh, but they are more then capable of supporting the other units I mentioned well.

In fact I would say they have the best early game out of all the factions.

Yeah, weak early game was true when both Volks and Kubel were so-so, but now their early game is very solid indeed, Sturms are still very good, Volks become good as soon as truck is set up and Kubel is amazing.

None of which changes the fact that AssEngies wer overpowered. Personally I'd have liked to give them some scaling by having the flamethrowere give them armor or received accuracy, at the cost of more munitions than 60 of course. As it is, they die very fast after early game. Albeit the demo is indeed good.

If 3v3 and 4v4 are in the game in a ranked capacity, then they deserve to be properly balanced instead of just being ignored.

If Relic's plan is to ignore 3v3 and 4v4 then 3v3 and 4v4 should be banished into the custom match sewers and begone from ranked.

That's of course the inferior option. The better option is to actually balance the game on all levels of play. Those who say this is an impossible goal do nothing to further the game and make it enjoyable for a wider audience.

I'm actually of the mindset that most of the "imba" stuff we see in 3v3 and 4v4 is actually imba in a 1v1 and 2v2 setting. It's just that when the imba stuff proliferates, it becomes far more obviously imbalanced. So while KT might be "kinda" imba in 1v1, when we see 4 players with 4KTs, the problem gets a magnifying glass put over it.

Same if pre-patch 100 range ISU 152 was imbalanced. In 1v1 it's only a bit imbalanced. In 4v4 it's very imbalanced, but the fact that it's imbalanced in the first place doesn't change.

Same thing with stuka strafing runs. "Kinda" imba in 2v2, but super imba when they can be called in non-stop in 4v4.

But nobody will say "zomg Conscripts are imba in 4v4" because Conscripts are not imba in 1v1. Same for SU-76. The units that are fundamentally imbalanced can be produced en masse in a 4v4, to make the opponent's life more miserable several fold.

The thing is, KT is not really unbalanced in 1v1 because you need a crapload of fuel to access it, and your opponent can easily cut off your supply. Unless you really outmatch your opponent by a large margin, you will need to build vehicles, each of which delays the KY by that much more fuel. Same for the ISU to a lesser extent, albeit that one is more map-dependant than anything else (you probably won't get it on Langreskaya, Semois is another matter). Point is, there is a consequence to getting heavies in 1v1, it's harder to maintain map control and your opponent won't let you rest easy if he's decent. If you're at 100 fuel towards a KT and your opponent's 2 T-34s drive you off the map and take all the fuel, you're in a very bad position.

So overall, these units are fine in 1v1. What changes in team games is that one player can focus on teching while the other(s) hold the enemy back. Build caches, get mostly support teams to provide backup, and save fuel for the big heavies while the others get the mid-game tanks. Doing that in 1v1 will get you crushed before you can secure the needed fuel. But in team games, you have backup that can save your ass.

Mind you, this is the same in Starcraft; the (say) Battlecruiser is a meh unit at best in 1v1 because it's too expensive, in teams games a player that focuses on them can create a victory fleet if properly supported. And this is the most balanced RTS in history. Balancing units in 1v1 by cost inevitably means that in team games, which are much more forgiving ressource wise, the unit's balance will change. You can't really cure that, unless you start adjusting all unit prices per gamemode, in which case you probably open a gigantic can of balancing worms what you will never be able to close.

A possible solution would be a flat ressource rate reduction in team games, I guess. But that's still a lot of playtesting to find the right percentage, and it's still pretty damn arbitrary.