|
croc looks like a waste of time to be honest, brit player just got inf spammed and hit by throw away vehicles, Ost should be punished more for just chucking units away like that, fun game though |
Lemme get this straight: You're playing one of the easiest matchups in this game on perhaps the most Allies-friendly map against a completely inoffensive, barely top 1000 player, and then you trashtalk him? Quite classy...sic transit gloria mundi.
Hey LeYawn...lets see your Soviet victory replays against OKW then? ...total silence coming up  |
The design to leave two factions without a sniper is quite frankly dumb.
good point, its like allowing a core infantry unit as the one that wields the shrek is quite frankly dumb |
|
|
|
this shit keeps happening and ive tried M5 and it doesnt kill aircraft, it just gets strafed to death...lol, they need to not attack at base as its yet another win button |
Yeah, soviets are in a pretty weird spot right now.
My advice? abuse the team weapons, use maxims bulletins (especially the accuracy one) and make 2 maxims and one mortar to slow down the blobs.
another thing is, don't bother with cons, make 3 of them AT MOST, but 2 is already enough, try to compliment them with flamer engies and use merge on those mgs.
never forget, mines and demos are your best bets.
and don't overextend, relic may have sold the "soviets are super aggressive faction" but in reality they aren't, try to keep a balance between attacking and defending and you should be fine.
there are lot's of other tips I could say, but I'm really tired now, maybe later after I watch your replay
I used to do this sometimes before the napalm nade, I found myself being hugely outnumbered though, I think because it kills so few models as it prompts an immediate retreat, having said that it can definitely work
|
There is No reason to ever make an Su-8five. EVER. Su-76 is far superior in that role now. Usually it's best to stay in Soviet T3 (T-70, halftrack, Su-76) until you can call in tanks (lend lease, KV-8, IS-2)
I have won five games against OKW and lost one to an obviously superior player since listening to your advice about going cons to tier two with a shock squad, I get a single MG and then Zis wall to KV8 then IS2, I think I was trying to be too clever and going too mixed arms, instead of getting a steady stream of cons going and winning battles as opposed to trying to win the map, thank you for your help its been greatly appreciated, must admit the napalm nade being toned down a bit has helped as well |
If they improved t34-76 to be like a P4, it would solve the Russian problem in a fell swoop. yes it would, they could even out the cost as well |
Just a sidenote: The hull armor of the Panzer IV G/H/J was 80mm thick and German crews were instructed to angle their armor, making it pretty much as effective as the T-34s armor.
Also the T-34/76 lacked in other categories that are much more important (cupola, gun, radios, commander and gunner being the same person, no turret base, vision slits etc.). So a Panzer IV outperforming a T-34 is perfectly fine.
What I find ridiculous is the randomness of stats and abilities like weapon damage, range or blitzkrieg. This is of course owed to balance, but Panthers getting out-ranged by other anti tank units still looks silly. The same as the Jackson doing more damage than an IS-2. I wished this was somehow influenced by realism. The same goes for Nascar Panzers.
the Panther was produced in response to the T34, although the PIV reached some parity with the T34/76, that was absolutely its highest watermark, both tanks could penetrate each other with a single shot and both had on par optics so armour and gun differences don't matter, it comes down to mobility, reliability, chance of deflection and turret speed, all of which the T34 wins on, I'm ignoring training, crew ability and communication because these are situational and to much of a variable, purely talking about the tank itself |
I see lots of people make points and counter points about something not being historically accurate and then a reply that this game can't be historically accurate as it is an RTS not a comp sim war game. This is true, but it's no excuse to not use historical parameters to help dial in theme and asymmetric balance. What I am trying to say is sometimes doing things that aren't just not historical but actually completely 100% anti-historical is nonsense and should not be defended with "well we have to forsake accuracy for balance". Rather than just stabbing in the dark with unit values and then tuning they should try to get all their comparative data right not in absolute terms but in relative terms among other common units. Then we could get rid of ridiculous things like an SU-76 being same penetration as SU-85 and 34/76 having worse armor/hp than PIV ausf G despite being better armored with its famous 60° front armor slope.
This all happens because it seems like Relic just makes educated guesses at where values should be and makes the decisions almost in a vacuum then they start tweaking and tweaking and tweaking each unit without referencing it to its peers to get the game play not be game breaking based upon feedback. As they keep tweaking, you get to points where many weapon/unit comparisons don't make any logical sense. They should use weapons data from field tests to determine comparative accuracy and penetration between all armor and their guns then tweak cost and mobility/special abilities to get them into the right spot for their respective faction.
I couldn't agree more with this, I think historical accuracy would create a much better balanced game, as in reality Tanks were developed in response to enemy tanks, so in a way reality was always attempting to achieve parity or dominance, infantry combat is fine and more flexible, as in a game people cant dive into cover or hide behind a dead comrade etc, reality is not literal its merely a starting point from which you can finely adjust |
0
General_Me
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
