Profile of elchino7

Anyone thinking OP is right just needs to read this post by Milka then unbunch their panties.

If it doesn't convince you continue by reading Jinseual's post.

Rifleman are very good from the very start of the game and continue to be good with BARs at he correct range.

So, i guess you didn't read the part where he said they might be a bit too weak right now.

And OP statement might remain true: Bars are the worst upgrade in the game (for cost, teching and performance)

PD: eventhough i feel that the Stormtroopers upgrade is a bit worst (100muni for PGs hmmm...)

I disagree. Soviet mines are better than OKW, shocks are arguably stronger than obers without armor in the picture, and with zero fuel investment required. I could take the paragraph you wrote above, replace unit names with allies' equivalents and it'll sound just as plausible.

Both mines are equal, dealing same amount of damage.
Shocks have armor, Obers have RA >>> which is practically the same

Reducing incomes is not as easy as it sounds. You are not taking into account initial amount of fuel, teching cost, timing to field counters, etc.

You are going to play 8 mins with only Rifles? What will you do against a Kubel? German sniper? SOVIET sniper? M3?
What about mp? It stays the same or also scales? Cost of the units?

Speaking of the devil, i never had a dream prior to reading this thread

I was playing as a mix of USF+SU on a mix map of Semois/Kharkov. Instead of playing normally, i was facing like "waves" of enemies and the game played slowly till i set some orders. It was more of a puzzle solution game, where i had to position and move troops on the correct way and then the time would flow normally. After feeling like something was wrong (how the hell does my opponent have so many troops "Hecks") i started entering lucid dream state and woke up

I guess sandbags OP, they give too much utility

I'll do you a favour and start a new thread to focus on another direction the discussion around the chaotic world of 4v4.
I will try to divide this into: appealing (why you choose to play 4v4) and imbalance.

Appealing:
Please give me an answer besides i'm playing with 2-3 other friends. I'm specially more interested for those who decide to search random 4v4.

A-Is is due to not having to focus on caping?
B-You like too see/play with a huge amount of units on screen?
C-While maps are bigger, you actually finish playing on a really small portion of the map most of the time, so you can focus mostly on that, is that what you like? (Besides some huge YOLO push on late game)
D-You enjoy being able to have plenty/steady amount of resources (caches) to be able to use any ability or field vehicles?

Imbalance:
Now the nasty thing.

1-
First of all, I would consider that anything that is remotely imbalanced on 2v2, exponentially grows on 4v4. You mostly don't have to worry about any weakness a big opportunity reward unit might give you since by either map design or sheer amount of suppport from your teammates, you can overcome it.

Early game: name it maxim spam, M3 (up to some degree due to not being able to focus most of the time on lone squads), dodge (nerfed), sniper spam, Kubel spam, truck push.
Midgame: pretty non existent but here we can see blobs develop.
Late: doctrinal medium tanks have a small window of opportunity to shine (by a snowball effect) till call ins and heavy tanks arrive.

IMHO: If the game on 1v1 and specially 2v2 is on a better state, this should generally translate to the other modes.

2-
WFA:
I'm gonna put it simply. OKW gets all the benefits by being supported by OH and at the same time complement it with useful trucks, which due to how the game plays (slow push through the map) synergizes perfectly.
On the other hand we have USF which it's tricky to use, requires methodical and finesse micro late game, and almost bring nothing new to the table (USF blob is countered by OKW blob and ease of use of Stuka).

IMHO: it's hard doing redesign on factions. USF will remain hard to play when the characteristics thats make it good can't be use for good on this mode. Add micro requirements and we have a problem.


3-
Maps:
Gonna put it simply. Clusterfuck maps makes Stuka and JT people happy. Sorry Scheldt, turtle style guys. If you want something remotely balance, allow for open routes and flanks.


4-
What you like may be what it is neccesarily imbalanced:

Have you answered or considered my ABCD points?

I'm not gonna overextend here and just let you discuss but i'm gonna say:
-On the REMOTE CHANCE IT WAS POSSIBLE, what would you choose to "sacrifice" to make the game more balanced?
A- Volume of units (cap): make it so that each players have access to a lesser amount of units. Make it feel like you are playing a 2v2 (0.5 per player)(you can't deny that most of the time you are just playing 2 2v2 on the map).

B- Volume of tanks: make it so that it harder to spam tanks late game. Each tank now is more important.

C- Amount of resources: so you can spam less offmaps/abilities. You could start by eliminating, reducing or changing how caches work. Trying to slow tech by artificially reducing fuel income leads to problems on teching timings (being able to field counters)