Profile of Iron Emperor

Jump back to quoted post28 Feb 2016, 21:25 PMAerohank

DEVM murdered Jove when he tried to use emplacements (with the emplacement commander) just a few hours ago in the ESL quater finals. DEVM didn't even need to chose a commander up until the lategame where he called in a tiger instead of a second panther.

Jump back to quoted post28 Feb 2016, 17:57 PMAerohank

I have never felt the need to rotate maps. The only time I would rotate it is when I want to place a mine behind a door that I can't normally see or something. After that, I always hit backspace to go back to standard view.

Rotating maps is downright annoying in teamgames. Player1: "We are getting flanked through the east!"
Player 2: "Alright, I am on it!" *sends units to intercept*
Player 1: "The other east!!"

Jump back to quoted post28 Feb 2016, 03:28 AMdrChengele

1. "Counters exist"
This is a non-argument. It is a unit that is not invulnerable. Therefore it can be destroyed. Therefore counters exist. I want a 90 manpower MG42 with 20% increased range, instant pin, and 4x the damage. Since molotovs, smoke, grenades and mortars exist I guess this would be balanced in your book, since existence of counters apparently immediately invalidates any discussions of a unit's effectiveness and gameplay impact.

2. "Just cap the rest of the map"
1v1 maps can be very small and some 2v2+ maps have an insane amount of chokepoints and good mortar pit spots. Try capping the rest of the map on Kharkov or Rails. This is more of a map design issue but ultimately since the game is played on these maps, and since it's unrealistic they will drastically change all the maps, then the units and abilities should be designed around the current map design, not for some hypothetical vacuum.

3. "Emplacements mean less map presence"
Absolute myth. Let that mortar kill 12 Grenadier models during its lifetime and it more or less paid off for itself through reinforcement costs. Everything after that is a NET POSITIVE, it means your mortar pit allows for MORE British squads on the field than German ones.

When you have an infantry squad that inflicted 20 casualties you must ask yourself how much reinforcement cost went into it to get there. Not so for the emplacements. There is some opportunity cost of having to dedicate engineer to repair ( a very cheap squad to create and reinforce. ) except the sim city commander now allows you to go without that as well. Whoops.

In fact, I would argue that emplacements can translate into more map presence having locked down a part of the map, the Brit player can afford to send their mobile elements farther out. If the Axis attacks the emplacements they can't do it piecemeal, they need to invest constant pressure involving significantly more micro and more units in well-timed combined arms attack. which means it is Axis whose map presence is impaired.

4. Emplacements are balanced.
Who gives a crap if they are or aren't? That is besides the point. The point is that a game that is ostensibly about positioning, maneuver, combined arms and flanking ends up being about two people lobbing shells in a parabolic curve at each other from across half the map, watching hit point bars slowly go up or down for minutes at a time.

Oh except you can't do that either because counterbattery. Whoops.

Jump back to quoted post27 Feb 2016, 20:41 PMgeneral_gawain

Okay I played 7 3vs3 games now with the new land matress commander, 4 yesterday before damage versus buildings was reduced and AOE was slightly lowered, 3 today. I always went heavy for them (2-3 units) to test their performance in a normal game situation.

The good:
- their damage versus blobs is very strong, squad wipes happen
- can be recrewed if not destroyed entirely
- low fuel cost

The medicore:
- their range seems to be not that huge as others stated here, for such a slow rocket launcher it is pretty medicore
- their damage vs OKW trucks is okay now, you need multiple salvos at once (otherwise the truck is repaired again)
- in teamgames where ressource income is higher walking stuka can arrive long before matress can be called

The bad:
- because of long and slow firing salvo + setup/dismount time it is very prone to counterfire from other rocket artillery like walking stuka and painwerfer and some offmap area attacks
- falls excel versus them on maps with lots of ambient buildings
- quickly mowed down by any kind of infantry/vehicle counterattack if not guarded properly, to slow to evade by itself
- slow in reaching firing position
- can be stolen and turned versus you (happend twice to me)
- manpower heavy
- doctrinal, comes with a commander without any kind of offmap attack or late game abilities/units


Conclusion:
They truly shine as a blob counter and at attacking a forward build healing truck after a mass retreat. This isn't such a bad thing, because blobbing should be punished and FRP mechanic is bs in team games anyway.
On the other side they drain your manpower even more. With brits having most expensive base infantry unit, most expensive MG and most expensive AT-Gun plus mortar pit for 400mp, Forward Assembly and the doctrinal 4 men commandos for 400mp, you truly have to make some decisions if you decide to take this commander. The land matress has a unfavorable ratio of manpower to fuel. Manpower will really limit your decisions if you take this commander, there is so many you want to afford, you seem to be always low on population unless you are really kicking ass from the beginning.

I lost three games, always to tanks, this is the real weak spot of the commander. In arranged teams it can work out, but you have to make sure that your mates will care for the construction of caches and for enough AT power. You are heavily delayed in producing Cromwell/Firefly. Again I think manpower is more of a problem than fuel. So I wouldn't rate it too high, other commanders have good abilities/units too that can decide a game and are not that manpower starved. Sure it would be a total different thing if it would be non-doctrinal like walking stuka or painwerfer.

Jump back to quoted post27 Feb 2016, 20:24 PMAerohank

If only axis weapons did more damage than soviet weapons. The the extra models would be balanced...

Oh wait! They already do!

/thread