Also supression is I win combat button because if unit get supressed it cant fire back effectively and get always defeated (volks vs supressed rifles for example)
It is entirely true. It is one 235 mp unit with one 430 mp unit against a one 280mp unit. Sounds like a won engagement to me. Funny part is that in such engagement rifles will retreat after getting suppressed with no losses, while volks will loose models before LeIG manages to even hit.
The whole catch is that this is very expensive unit that doesnt even bleed your opponent much, only suppresses him and it is very expensive. Meaning usf have numerical advantage and can attack from multiple directions to negate its effect. This unit also pretty bad if you attack due to inability to retreat if it gets flanked. That means you are bound to defence once you buy it.
What is also really important is that for the time you spend waiting to get 430mp for it you are very weak and good opponent will use it to his advantage to cap a map or attack hard points. |
Give it number 1.
When you see enym unit press 1 and attack enemy unit. This is all you need to do. And it cant get flanked like mg 42 can because it is howitzer that is in front of You shall not move zone covered by flakhq
Well, that would mean I dont see multiple units all the time, which is bullshit, or your algorithm doesnt work  To work even on half of the map, especially by using it the way you describe, the unit cant stay in one place, it just doesnt have enough range. LeIG has easier time with it but the statement is just as true as in pack case. Means it can be flanked, it can be killed and it can be stolen. Ofc it is not getting as overextended as mg usually is but it also has no retreat button. It works the same way as AT-gun just against infantry not tanks, really easy to understand.
Also, the most important change is not that you have to face it, but that it is not sniping moving targets any more. |
my understanding of asymmetrical balancing would be two armies a,b with one having a unit that costs 300 that wins exactly against the 3 units of the other army costing 300 in total. thats asymmetrical balance to me. not one of the 3 units costing 100 beating the unit for 300 which is allegedly justfied because Army A gets a good counter to that in late game.
In such case the army with more, weaker but cheaper units would be totally disadvantaged. Why? Because imagine that one big unit clashes with 3 weaker ones. During the slugfest it will eventually kill one of 2 of them, then both players will realise that they may loose the engagement and will fall back. That is a huge win for player with stronger unit, as he can repair it while his opponent has to rebuild his unit. Which means your understanding of assymetric ballance is bad.
The only existing definition of asymetric ballance it that 2 armies are completely different but have same chances to win. There is no flawless concretisation of this. |
|
Nice work, good that you want to update that, this is the problems with those who are early to the party usually. |
|
You are not locked, apart from mg34 commanders you can also go for pzfusiliers, they are great and cost effective against usf or JLI with ostwind. JLIs need to be used more carefully as they are quite expensive to reinforce but they also do the job when supported with the ostwind.
Once you get to last tier its good to make some obers. Only unit that can stand against them from usf is paratrooper squad, but with vet obers can get even better than paras. Especially vet4 buff is worth mentioning as it gives obers suppression.
What else? You will probably need a jpzer early on to kill hordes of shermans. Once it gets some vet this one unit gives you ability to single handly counter every usf tank force, no matter how big it is. You just should remember to cover it with raketenwerfer when overextended so that it doesnt get flanked.
That gives you stable fuel advantage over usf unless you loose jpzer or they go with no tank build (latter one never happened to me even though it is a valid option). You can use it either by building luchs or p4 to counter infantry. Eventually you can also wait for KT once you stabilise yourself a defencive line and controll over half of vps. |
|
After playing on both sides of its fire I must say that I rally like what relic did with ISGs recently. With suppression but without auto face the unit function as kind of more expensive and less reliable mg. It cannot stop rushing squads any more, it also does only minimal damage so full hp squads are safe. You need to face it in correct direction so you can't support multiple directions and you have to choose which engagement you want to support with that expensive unit. It means you will win that one, but you have no forces for other engagements.
To make it simple: it is standard coh position based unit, not abnomination like pak walls or blobs, just a unit like single pak or single mg you need to carefully position to support engagement you want.
It is also worth mentioning that right now it is not worth to build more than one unless you face brit emplacements. In many cases it is not even worth to get one of them, that doesnt mean they are op, means they are ballanced. |
commando gliders also cause massive physics explosions when they come down.
Yeah, these explosions on gliders look strange. It also happens to tanks recently but is local only to their visible crew, like m36 crew or top gunner. When the tank is killed all the guys go up to the sky over the camera incredibly quickly and then fall on the ground few meters from wreck. |
|
King tiger has a really huge amount frontal and rear armor so t-34/76 could have problems even with rear one, it can be penetrated but takes multiple shots. To beat it you should face all your tanks on the rear of KT. t-34/85 should penetrate rear 100% of times but if you stay on side its rng that dictates wheather you hit rear or fron armor.
The other way is to circle around KT with your tanks. It turns itself and its turret so slowly you kan kill overextended KT with one medium without losses even without very good micro. It is good to have some kind of steady damage dealer nearby like su-85 or atgun to speed up the process.
Btw try using paragraphs and dividing compound sentences into simple ones. Its really hard to understand you if your whole post is one huge sentence. |
Ain't that the point of putting it in at all, though? Guessing which one's real, unless you get a sweeper to find out for sure? Reasoning out "The one along my probable retreat path is probably the real one"? I may be misinterpreting though, could you change your wording if so?
They spend more time writing and drawing nicely now they don't have to place mines 
What I ment there is that retreat is a binary decision and players probably will be wise enough to put the real minefield so that it crosses most used retreat path. That means you have 50/50 chance to go wrong and no way to go back after detonating one cluster. If you go wrong its a wipe. And I just not feel a wipe is worth 15 or even 20 munitions, even if it is a 50/50 situation.
In every situation other than retreat its fine as you have multiple ways to go so the chance is for example 25% to go wrong.
As for the cost thing I dont want a situation when wehrmacht player is hiding behind pak43, mg42s, command tanks or whatever and covering whole place with fake signs just because he has plenty of time. That would not only look stupid but if he sneaks, for example 4 to 6 15 muni sectors in it there is no way of counterplay unless you blob with sweeper. And that is lame.
In my opinion the cost should be big enough to make players build signs and mines in same amounts for maximum effectivness or maybe twice as much mines as signs. It can be 5 muni for a fake that is the size of one sector and 10 muni for fake of 4 sector size for example. |
I dunno if that'd be a problem myself, Soviet light mines are pretty small. Last I recalled, they definitely will cover less of an area than the light mines...but why not both? indeed.
I think a key matter to balancing it would be build time - enough such that sign spam will lead to Allies realizing "Ok I'm pretty sure they're all just signs." Additionally, spamming them hard enough could also lead players to call the bluff by reasoning that it's impossible for you to have that many munitions anyway. But regardless, I would be quite open to a minimal munition cost to apply a bit more thought to their application (still think an appropriate build time could do the trick as well though, time is resources!).
Time is a resource but the problem is not that you dont realise minefields are fake but that ostheer player would be able to put 4 sign fields and one additional minefield. That way he forces you to go sweeper or step into what sometimes my even lead to loosing squad if its weak and you try to soft retreat it. Same goes for retreating. You think passage is clear, these are only signs as who would make 10 minefields. But the one that retreat path is crossing is real. That is in my opinion situation worth at least demo cost for whole line, as it has huge wipe potential.
Another thing is that minefields itself build in notime. How strange would it be if pios needed more time to place only signs than to place mines and signs? |
Poland
Rudon
ferwiner
ferwiner
ferwiner
ferwiner
Relic Entertainment
