i doubt that skipping t1 would work in 1v1s anyway... but i had moderate success in 2v2 and 3v3 with the 3xMG 1x Pio strat.
that gives you 2 pios and 3 mgs for the start. if you are playing random 2v2, you might be at a disadvantage though, because you will need mobile units from your partner.
dont forget that even after 3 MGs you can still elect to go T1 anyway... but in case you DO want to go T2, Pgrens are more or less your only choice. i don't really like osttruppen (haven't tried them lately though). One thing you have to make sure is to keep your MGs safe, because losing one and giving them the MG could spell disaster for your early.
good luck getting it to vet :-) also thanks for ignoring everything else, further proves my point that you have no experience with the AEC, which is in fact decent.
For the 10000th time: 600 MP obers would fulfill their role too, but their cost would prohibit their use.
I also doubt we can really come to a consensus here when you believe that the puma has a different role than an AEC. Not that I disrespect your opinion, but this arguement will probably just come down to personal opinion, which is why that poll is there.
only that the AEC is not overpriced, at least not as much as people make it out to be.
AEC has no purpose on the field once he killed/kept at bay Luchs.
Luchs, Stuart, T70 and 222 can be used in late game as a scout unit (222, T70, and Luchs with camo) or to harras single squad capping your points. They can be used all the time.
I guess AEC is more like Puma, but even Puma has late-game utility. 50 range is enough to kite medium tanks, it can also flank SUs and kill them.
Add elite armor rounds and it can become your best AT unit.
Now AEC.
Once it counters Luchs, it has nothing to do. 40 range means it cannot kite tanks like Puma. Almost 0 AI means it cannot defend your flanks.
It can only scout while other light vehicles can scout and/or fight infantry/tank.
50 range, or give it some AI power.
i am still not sure if you are being serious with all the stuff you say, or if it's just your way of fanboyism.
especially the 222 is useless pretty much the entire game. there is no point where it is unopposed. it dies to everything more than 1 mainline infantry unit straight up. gets oneshot by almost every kind of vehicle/at. scoutcar as a scout unit lategame is a waste of ressources. the aec on the other hand does pretty well at what you say: it can harass everything but schrecked pgrens (ostheer) and schrecked volks (okw) from capping. and just like you say the puma can flank SUs, the AEC can flank stugs and kill them. i am seriously starting to doubt whether you've actually ever tried the AEC.
4V4 Winrate - 80/20 in favor of axis
1v1 winrate, 70% axis winrate, 50% allied winrate
It's fine guys, L2P.
before the patch it was completely the other way around. fanboys of either side don't want balance. question is, do YOU want balance? if so, why didnt you complain about allies being too strong last patch?
I would like to see iTzDusty playing 1vs1 as UKF vs a top OKW player in a ten matches challenge.
After that we could have a better understanding of the situation.
Thanks.
you do realise that dusty atm is ranked 2nd in 1v1 UKF? if you really want to learn how to play vs. OKW atm, why don't YOU play versus him? worst case scenario, you lose all the time but you can copy whatever he did when playing as brits.
The snipers have very similar pure DPS, and yet I see the ost sniper superior vs infantry because it comes out earlier and has an semi-instant 100% accuracy shot (that means 100% wipe on any 2 man squad). It doesn't change anything, we can make arguments all day, that's just asymmetrical balance. Grass is usually greener on the other side.
You wrote something like "if you don't like AEC, get a cromwell". One makes the AEC in response to a fast luchs/FHT/whatever, and it's not like you'll need 2 AECs against them. They don't have any uses outside of that, that's why it doesn't make sense to make multiple.
If you tech BP1 when you have the fuel, I doubt you'll even have 60 muni for an lmg42. Since you'll make it anyways, you should just get it at the earliest possible time, so the gren upgrades will arrive even sooner than they can be used.
You are intentionally (or unintentionally?) ignoring every good aspect of axis and every bad aspect of allies in your posts. That way most allied units will indeed come out to be superior, but if you just play a significant quantity of games as every faction, you will come to realise that the game is, in fact, well-balanced, and for those few wrongly balanced units that you find, feel free to create a separate thread. This one is not axis vs allies, it's about the AEC.
and i'm telling you after having played the brits as well: the AEC does not need buffs.
if you need an AEC to deal with Luchs, get one. Your cromwell will be delayed, so you might need something as a stopgap, and since you already have an AEC, you can also elect to build a second one. together they'll arguably be as good as the cromwell at AT. if you don't need AT, you can simply rely on MP only units until you get the cromwell.
every other faction has to make choices like this as well. the brits never had to in previous patches, which is the only reason people complain about the AEC. it's not as ridiculously OP as all the other brit units were, so in comparison it feels weak. the AEC was never supposed to be a medium tank hunter or an anti infantry plattform. and, again, for the 10000th time: it has a role, just like the 222 for example, and it fulfills its role just fine without any buffs (like you said, counter a luchs, maybe a FHT or 222, though i'd claim that neither of the latter actually needs an AEC to get countered, but anyways...). the only real "problem" with the AEC is that against ostheer you pretty much never need it (no vehicles pose a threat until you can get something better than the AEC), against OKW right now you might need it vs the Luchs (because 6pdr/sniper/mines as a counter to the luchs force you to play way more defensive and give up map control, delaying your teching alternatives). it is, like you said, more of a reactionary, niche unit. and if you buff the AEC, it will most likely be too strong after the inevitable OKW nerfs. the unit IS fine.
that's a really bad attitude to have. This is about balancing the game not having some petty revenge.
Yes, some wehr unit are a bit crap atm, like the 222, the flamethrower ht, and the brummbar. Instead of dragging the AEC down in some sort of petty revenge, what should be done is to make all of them useful.
I'm not dragging anything down. For the 1000th time, the aec does its job. I mentioned the brummbär as a unit that DOESN'T do its job. Or has no clear identity or whatever. UKF has all the tools to deal with light vehicles or medium tanks, the aec does not need a buff of any sort. It has a role which it is good at. It has other uses, at which it doesnt excel (AND IT SHOULDN'T). Just because the puma exists doesn't mean the aec needs to be anywhere close to it in performance.
Regarding the idea of balancing team games, this may be rather simplistic but isn't this issue pretty much down to resource income?
Leaving aside the synergy between different factions on the same team (which would apply to both sides) the resource income is determined mostly by the number of sectors owned by that team isn't it?
So logically on a 2v2 map you will get more income than on a 1v1 and on a 3v3 you will get more than a 2v2?
Why can't you just then reduce the income per sector (including reducing cache benefits) depending upon the number of players?
2 players = 100%
4 players = 75%
6 players = 50%
8 players = 25%
Because there are maps for multiple game modes (that dont add sectors depending on players) so people would get he pitchforks because pacing is slower in higher player games (alao true for 4v4 btw... doesnt have 4 times the ressources)
If the other player invests 100+ ammo on a snare and PIATs (not counting the weapon unlock cost, too) and you let your lone medium tank unsupported as they get snared and then pelted, you deserve to lose that tank if you ask me. Assuming of course the Panzer 4 doesn't cut the lone sapper squad to ribbons even when snared.
Snare into double PIATs was far from a problem back when UKF sniper had its critical shot as I remember it. I get and support them losing that ability out of the gate, but it leaves UKF too exposed to light vehicles unless they shell out previous fuel for an AEC that is going to do nothing else. On top of all their problems with Volks being able to fight back against Tommies now, it makes UKF early game quite hard vs OKW.
And yeah, the Brumbar sucks, but that doesn't justify any other unit sucking as I said. Two wrongs don't make a right.
Missing the point entirely. AT and AT snare on same unit is a bad idea. It creates units that can single handedly kill everything vehicle based.
Also... if you think someone deserves to lose a tank when getting in snare range... what about uc in faust range?
Brummbär was an example of a unit that has been in a worse spot than the aec (along with both t2 vehicles) for ages, yet never got changed. Remember that the aec does fill its role.
Ost sniper has a higher fire rate, therefore it is more effectvie vs infantry. Also, where do you see these "quite clearly stronger allied units"?
Do i really have to make a video of that as well? Because its not true. Brit sniper takes a bit longer to take the first shot (0.5s on average if i remember correctly) and has a longer reload along with less bullets in the magazine. HE FIRES FASTER. Even with a reload time twice as long and a magazine size less than half of what thebost sniper has, the brit sniper is quicker at killing 4 dudes than the ost sniper. Factor in reloading and they're just as fast at killing 6 dudes. Go on, test it.
Refer to the 600 MP Obers that serve their purpose too. Making 2 or 3 AECs does not make sense by your own definition, you'll just be better off with a cromwell, because its single advantage over a cromwell is its arrival time.
Why would making several aecs not make sense? I explicitly mentioned that as an alternative to rushing better vehicles? And again, this is a choice all factions have to make. If i try skipping t2 as ost and have no pak or pgrens with schrecks... well, guess what happens when a vehicle hits the field.
Rifles have stronger vet and combat effectiveness, grens are cheaper, and they get literally everything for free (lmg42, nades, faust). Why'd you want bars instead of lmg42 is beyond me since the lmg is clearly better. Ost doesn't need 5 man upgrades because their mainline infantry is cost-effective without them, emplacements with brace on have as much EHP as an okw truck, idk why you have trouble killing it, its so easy for allies after all . FRP with reinforce costs 450 manpower, I'd really love if that was also a tech structure... I also can't understand why you consider weapon racks as an upside, opposing to upgrading on the field. Commandos cost 500 MP, churchills can throw nade at about penal satchel range and have a bad gun, and don't get me started on the all-powerful 25pounders that cost 45 muni to fire and won't kill a bunker off of that.
The only thing that could be arguably strictly better is tommies' self-healing, but it is negated by the fact that it's the only source of healing, leading to awkward situations where the only tommy is on the other side of the map and you have 3 unhealed squads sitting in the base.
Neither lmg nor faust or nade are for free... or if you are talking about unlocking the option, you have to tech t2... so while it is a tech that you will get in any case, it mught come later than you'll want.
I could make points for everything you mentioned, but in the end it was just an example for "asymmetrical balance" and how the allies were getting the best in almost every case, apart from the aec.