I agree with a lot of the criticism, and I think rolling out the changes gradually (assuming the changes ever get rolled out) is a bad idea. I also think CieZ is right that there are a lot of good steps in this patch. I feel, and I think this is true of other people as well, that the problem is how much they could have changed and didn't (especially vis a vis call-in meta/Ost teching costs), rather than with the changes they did make.
That said, I want to correct one misunderstanding, which is that as far as I understand it the limit on heavy vehicles is for simultaneous units on the field. Meaning you'll still be able to have a second IS-2 if your first one gets destroyed, you just won't be able to have two on the field simultaneously.
As for KTs, I guess I never play 4v4 so I can't really say for sure, but it strikes me that if your army composition includes more than one KT you're doing something drastically wrong, which the allies should be able to exploit. I mean that would be more than half of your total popcap in two large, slow targets. |
I don't think people are too upset about the RNG in cons vs grens, or Sherman vs P4... Engagements like that are what make coh great.
Now a Jackson bouncing and missing 4 rear shots on a KT during an hour long game doesn't make coh great.
So much this |
I think the complaint is better understood as someone above indicated, in terms of opportunity costs. I don't usually have a trouble eventually blowing up the OKW trucks. Sometimes I'm successful at blowing up multiple trucks (B4 precision shot helps). However, just blowing up a truck usually isn't enough, especially when investing the time, resources, and attention into blowing it up means you aren't doing other things.
That said, I still think the main problem with the Flak HQ is the penetration value. |
I pick Partisan! and I have nothing of the mentioned above.
Partisans have their uses in team games but IMO there's only a few commanders worth taking 1v1/2v2, and Partisans are not good enough. That said, it's not like the Soviet stock units are terrible; cons can snipe grens even at range, Maxims are extremely cost-effective, the stock T34 isn't a bad tank by any means, and personally I think the T70 is the best light vehicle in the game. |
Katitof, calm down. I think most neutral observers can agree that
1) Soviet stock units are not super great (except for the T70, which is a model murdering machine) compared to the call-ins, which is a problem, but also that
2) The Soviets currently have the best army by a long shot, since there are no gaps on the roster. Soviets have 30 muni mines, core infantry that scales at least to midgame, elite infantry that can wipe Obers at melee range, both of the best indirect fire units in the game (stationary and team-manned), pound-for-pound the best medium tank in the game, the second best heavy tank in the game after the KT, and a reasonably effective AT gun with a powerful barrage ability. Obviously you can't have all of those things at the same time, but that's kind of beside the point, which is that the Soviets have an answer for absolutely everything that can be thrown at them, and several things (like the 120mm mortar, or T34/85 spam) that the Axis factions have no direct answer to. I mean the only weaknesses I would really attribute to the Soviets are the length of the molotov throwing animation, and the lack of damage-dealing handheld AT, though for what they do the stock AT nades aren't bad. Compare that to the OKW medium tank situation, or the USF heavy tank/elite infantry situation, or everything about Ostheer.
Getting back OT, the Schwerer flak cannon needs a moderate penetration nerf and then a slight nerf to either DPS or suppression. That's all, I should think. |
The only problem I have with the flak truck is its penetration. DPS and suppression are more or less fine. But it shouldn't be able to kill a T-34 or a Sherman from the front without at least some kind of help. |
I only find kubels an issue on 1v1 Semoskiy, because they can get to your cutoff before you can and the bridge is so narrow. Otherwise I'm generally pretty happy to see the kubel (especially in 2v2) because it only means resources down the drain for OKW.
As for the issue about molotovs, it depends. I generally only go for them if the Axis player likes camping in buildings, and/or if I'm in a good spot toward midgame and have some armor out. |
Rifles aren't even worth 280 mp atm since 235 mp folks outperform them at medium range with no extraneous factors.
"Citation needed" |
There's absolutely nothing wrong with grens, and they scale just fine.
When was the last time you played 1v1 as Ost vs USF?
ETA: Just to be clear, I think Ost is currently broken, especially vs. USF, but I don't think adding a fifth model would fix the underlying issues, and would probably exacerbate other issues or create new ones. Nerf Obers, make the OKW schreck the same as the Ostheer schreck, nerf rifles' DPS at range, increase suppression (or burst length--I like that idea a lot) on the HMG42, buff health/armor on the 222, reduce teching costs for Ostheer, and I think you're in a pretty good spot as long as squad AI behaves better. |
I found ostheer ok vs soviets, pretty shitty vs USF however making Grenadiers better will just promote gren spam and doesn't address the issue of ostheer having pretty expensive tech and quite a lot of underwhelming units.
I agree. Reduce rifles' DPS at range, make obers purchase their LMG (and nerf its DPS too) to compensate, and grens will be in a fairly decent spot. The bigger problems for OKH are (in rough order) teching costs, HP on the 222, and the anemic suppression of the popcornsprayer 42.
Squad AI could use some tweaks to prevent bunching but that's something of a separate issue. |