I want to be simple about this, I think it's a simple problem.
It's a fact that it is easier to win as Axis as the player count scales.
I believe this is due to efficiency related to units and player scaling.
In a small game, axis having more efficient units is not much of a problem, because the squad sizes are low and individual player skill ends up being more important than that small efficiency gains, hence 1v1 players do not feel it and excellent play is rewarded.
As the games get larger, the individual matters less. 1 or 2 axis players can be worth 3 or 4 allied players, just on efficiency. This means that if you took 2 average skilled axis players and put them against 3 average skilled allied players, it would be a CLOSE game.
I wish Relic had a decent API that allowed us to pull game data, because then we could easily see this with a little code.
Anyhow, I think the failure is in the pop cap. Maybe some 1v1 players can chime in, but I've never noticed people in 1v1 having pop cap issues. Meaning that Axis pop values should be adjusted to further reflect their greater efficiency. I don't think this would impact 1v1 and 2v2 so much, but it would make a big difference in 3v3 and 4v4, which tend to devolve into brainless tit for tats with high efficiency units. |
Not impressed with changes. The calipe change doesn't address issues axis players bring up. They can't get in the last shot? Nope, I don't see that. What I do see is masses of troops getting wiped, which is likely more frustrating than the health of the caliope. It's stupid slow, it can't escape.
The mortar halftrack, I just don't understand. I get that people felt the wp rounds were too good before. It got nerfed so hard that most of the people I use it on seem more annoyed that their vision is blocked, rather than the tiny bits of health they are losing. I'd rather the rounds be upped 10mu and be more effective at their job, than be useless and cheap. I think landing them somewhere between current and old would be fair. |
I see a lot of wild kv8 use in team games. Just wandering into at killzones, still doing heavy damage, but anyone with a brain would know that the kv8 wasn't coming out alive. |
I don't really understand the needs to make the scott trash. The main complaint I've heard is that it kills the infantry too fast or wipes squads entirely. Would be fair, if it wasn't for comparable terrors like the brumbar. Sure, it costs more, but the damned thing is incredibly resilient. It can sit in front of at guns and destroy the crew. We can't do that with the scott, we can kite, but we don't have the accuracy to kill the crew as fast. It's cheap, so we can get multiples, if pop cap allows. Fuel cost is similar to a brumbar at that point, 150f for 2 scotts. It's just weird to me, if the brumbar is going to be effective, the scott should be too. |
It was explained, but not well, due to bad english. Here is my take:
Every squad has a limit for suppression. When the threshold is breached, the squad will enter a suppressed state. Then there is another threshold for pinned. You can say the difference between no suppression applied and limit being 0 - 1. So:
0 = squad is not suppressed and can move and shoot full speed
1 = squad is suppressed and has severely limited movement and shooting capability
2 = squad is pinned and is unable to move and shoot
Every weapon has the capability to apply suppression to its target. Yes, that means if you had enough volks grenadiers firing at some conscripts, you could suppress them if they lived. The problem is the amount of suppression their rifles apply is tiny. Let say .01 (there is a real value, maybe someone can get that for you, I don't have it).
Heavy machine guns have a much higher value, say .4
Every squad has a recovery rate, so for ever game cycle they will remove that amount from their suppression state. Lets say our conscripts are .1
How many game cycles would it take for a heavy machine gun to suppress the squad? It should be 3, .4+.4+.4= 1.2 (threshold of 1 is breached)
If the machine gun stops firing at the squad, the squad will recover in 3 game cycles when it hits .9
You might recall some situations where you were suppressed by a heavy machine gun, got it to stop firing somehow, but because some pioneers were firing on your squad, your squad never stops being suppressed. This is because the pioneers are applying miniscule suppression and they aren't allowing the recovery rate to complete at optimal speed, might take 10x longer(dead by then).
So on to the magic question, why is it that you are getting suppressed behind heavy cover?
The easy answer is: you breached the suppression threshold on your squad.
When you enter heavy cover, the game applies a modifier to your squad, in order to change the amount of suppression being applied from all sources IN THAT DIRECTION. I don't know what the exact number is, but it might be something like .5. Therefore, the HMG will now be applying .2 instead of .4 suppression to your squad. So you can still get suppressed but it takes a hell of a lot more fire to do so.
Also previously stated, if the hmg targets a squad member that is out of cover, the entire squad will get suppressed!
Also, HMG's have an area effect when it comes to suppression. So if the hmg targets a nearby squad, suppression is applied to that squad and a reduced amount is applied to squads in range. This is what allows HMG's to suppress numerous squads. The solutions is to space out your attackers so they don't get caught in the area effect.
If anyone wants to post exact values, please do so |
I have trouble recognizing a 6 man crew as being beneficial, other than anecdotally. Axis infantry drop models the fastest in the game and the anti tank gun crew don't put up a fight at all. Arty is still gonna 1 shot all 6 dudes like any other at gun.
Besides, the crew can't move faster than a snail (what is it like half speed?) so once the gunner or the loader dies, they just get stuck in a death loop and never fire again. Might be all at guns and support weapons doing this, but 6 men is just more experience, more popcap consumed, and more lols. |
The 1919 is good if your Riflemen are allowed to be static in cover. So you need to find ways to force defensive engagements since you'll generally always win those with 1919's in green cover.
Since they can't fire on the move you'll find if you have to approach the enemy that you'll need overwhelming numbers since you're essentially attacking an entrenched position with 4 riflemen per squad until you stop moving. Once you overwhelm your opponent's position you'll have prime opportunity to either set up for a counter attack or get on the flank of an enemy squad to force them away since a 1919 hitting an out of cover squad at distance will do respectable damage.
While the 1919's downsides of being doctrine locked and less versatile than the Bar do exist, it carries it's own benefits worth considering. You don't have to spend 35 Fuel to tech weapon racks early which you can put into getting your armor out faster (Make sure you unlock your bazooka and tech late racks if you need to kit out your Major/RE's.) The 1919 is cheaper than 2 Bar's at a cost of 70 to 120 and is easier to keep track of since it can be hard to tell which Riflemen you've double Bar'd already if you aren't paying attention. Also since you have a long range weapon compared to shorter/medium range weapons you'll find that with proper use your squads will bleed models less which can be integral in the late game to ensuring manpower advantage.
Is that a yes from you that it's worth the 70mu cost? |
I can't help but notice that getting bars over the m1919 always seems to work better. The 19's can't seem to beat lmg grens. All the OKW infantry just walk through the fire. It seems to work on paratroopers, since you can get two and fire on the move. I think it costs the most of any lmg in the game. When it was possible to double up on them, I saw decent results, but now the bar seems to perform better and it's cheaper. When people complain about allies, I hear bar blob. I never hear complaints of m1919, to me that's a clue that it just isn't effective. Especially not for being the most expensive lmg in the game. |
So, how would that work vs MG bunkers?
Same as british emplacements, okw truck, fighting position. It would do less total damage than they currently do. |
I think the flame grenade and molotov cocktail should be adjusted somewhat vs emplacements. Specifically bunkers, but I think it's equally inappropriate vs the many British emplacements. It makes sense that fire would kill off the occupants in an emplacement, but not to collapse concrete walls or deal significant structural damage. All this at a cost less than a frag grenade of any kind.
For gameplay sake, I do think they should still damage structures, however I think the damage should be toned down to better reflect their price. |