4.9.6+ USAF vs Luftwaffe

Do you have a balancing problem or do you want to make a suggestion for the game? You are at the right place.
User avatar
Tiger1996
Posts: 2668
Joined: 06 Dec 2014, 15:53
Location: I'm from Egypt, but I live in Qatar.
Contact:

Re: 4.9.6+ USAF vs Luftwaffe

Postby Tiger1996 » 27 Apr 2017, 04:55

drivebyhobo wrote:What's wrong with Luftwaffe is that it now carries no doctrinal risk and that is why it is the king of 1v1s.

Huh? I completely disagree, it's true that I often lost against Luft doc in 1vs1 games before.. but just no. Luft doc is absolutely far from being the king of 1v1s anyhow... I am more likely to win than to lose against Luft doc though; even against the most hardcore Luft players.. such as Wurf or DerSeeman. Airborne doc is such a very good counter to Luft doc in 1vs1 games!
in my humble opinion, I think the king of 1vs1 games at the moment is actually RE doc.. believe it or not.

drivebyhobo
Posts: 29
Joined: 08 Mar 2015, 00:53

Re: 4.9.6+ USAF vs Luftwaffe

Postby drivebyhobo » 27 Apr 2017, 09:36

Tiger1996 wrote:
drivebyhobo wrote:What's wrong with Luftwaffe is that it now carries no doctrinal risk and that is why it is the king of 1v1s.

Huh? I completely disagree, it's true that I often lost against Luft doc in 1vs1 games before.. but just no. Luft doc is absolutely far from being the king of 1v1s anyhow... I am more likely to win than to lose against Luft doc though; even against the most hardcore Luft players.. such as Wurf or DerSeeman. Airborne doc is such a very good counter to Luft doc in 1vs1 games!
in my humble opinion, I think the king of 1vs1 games at the moment is actually RE doc.. believe it or not.

I am fully onboard with RE being top tier for 1v1. Not that it's saying much though. The US doctrines are bottom tier since scout cars are infamous for simply doing a dance of death with 37mm AT guns which the scout car easily wins. It's far easier in every way to use a camouflaged boys AT squad. Royal artillery is a support doctrine. That leaves only RAF and RE in the running. Royal Engineers pull ahead because of how often inexperienced Luftwaffe users tend to charge their paratroopers into over repaired Churchills expecting a one hit kill. They often don't even realize that Churchill HE struggles with penetrating even a Panzer III N.

I would like to remind you that I created the thread to mainly complain how Luftwaffe (the Air Force) gained new 'awesome' air strikes not so much to argue the ground merits. I primarily just don't like that the Stuka Patrol was seemingly added for the sake of the Rule Of Cool of consecutive blaring Stuka sirens. Though, I suppose we would still have the V1 if the rule of cool was followed strictly.

On the topic of Luftwaffe vs US airborne doctrine, I admit have always been skeptical of the Airborne doctrine. In this thread I've asked what allure airborne holds for people here aside from air strikes. It came down to flame grenades (kwok's list) and low upkeep/reinforcement cost (warhawks). I find those to be underwhelming compared to flak88s which can reliably stop Armor doctrine in its tracks. Meanwhile in an engagement with Infantry doctrine, their elite infantry thrives on diet of American infantry and Infantry stable of 75mm tanks are terrible at fighting the Luftwaffe tanks requiring the use of AT emplacements. What did the Stuka Patrol update punish? Infantry doctrine the most. At least RE got the emplacements cheap.

From the perspective particularly of Infantry doctrine, I don't see what AB does so much better than Infantry doctrine. Infantry has concussion grenades to clear buildings and trying to get close to elite Axis infantry with a short range flame grenade is a very obvious strategy. Low cost/upkeep infantry are also the domain of Infantry doctrine.

From what I see, Luftwaffe has free reign over the US doctrines and if the Axis team picks a PE player then the Allied team requires a British player.

But Tiger, you say you were once in my position and that you learned from your defeats such that you can reliability defeat your toughest Luftwaffe rivals as Airborne. What can you suggest that hasn't been suggested so far as a novel airborne strategy or tactic? What is your secret sauce to reliability defeating experienced Luftwaffe veterans ?

User avatar
Tiger1996
Posts: 2668
Joined: 06 Dec 2014, 15:53
Location: I'm from Egypt, but I live in Qatar.
Contact:

Re: 4.9.6+ USAF vs Luftwaffe

Postby Tiger1996 » 27 Apr 2017, 12:07

But Tiger, you say you were once in my position and that you learned from your defeats such that you can reliability defeat your toughest Luftwaffe rivals as Airborne. What can you suggest that hasn't been suggested so far as a novel airborne strategy or tactic? What is your secret sauce to reliability defeating experienced Luftwaffe veterans ?

I am not one of those players who actually sticks to a certain criteria anymore... Specifically as Airborne doctrine, so I can't really list my strategies as Airborne doctrine against Luft.. however; I think that Luft players will always be at a disadvantage against Airborne. Given the fact they don't have flame grenades at all... I often succeed to achieve vet.4 101st AB squads against Luft inf with over 40 inf kills. ONLY thanks to flame grenades!
Those 101st didn't even have any weapons upgraded, no Johnson LMGs nor Bars or anything else.

Another disadvantage for Luft players, is obviously snipers... Snipers have always been a pain in the ass against Luft inf, since they are quite expensive to reinforce. Not to mention about the Quad half-tracks! I usually have at least 2 Quad half-tracks at a time. You just need to be skilled enough to manage both half-tracks at the same time.. killing both enemy airplanes and inf.
Not forgetting about the supply drops... This is what truly makes your AB airstrikes even more painful than Luft airstrikes. AB can also field HE Shermans, which are quite deadly against all kind of inf units. One more thing I do, is that i would use 1 or 2 units for AT purposes only... As I would collect all my Bazookas and RLs to only 1 squad or 2. So, usually I would have a 101st squad with at least 5 RL or 82nd AB squad with 4 Bazookas.
I would prefer to use 76mm AT guns as well as Hellcats more against inf than vs tanks :P Thanks to HE shells.

If it's urban map, then i would just capture a house and upgrade it to FHQ. At this point; almost no one is able to come close, thankfully to the strafing run patrol which leaves no chance to any nearby inf to take down my FHQ...

speeddemon02
Posts: 106
Joined: 20 Jan 2015, 03:11

Re: 4.9.6+ USAF vs Luftwaffe

Postby speeddemon02 » 27 Apr 2017, 16:22

I'd have to agree. I love playing Luf, but have seen against RAF where vet 3+ units constantly getting overwhelmed and slowly not able to replace the losses. Rather interesting fights to watch sometimes.

kwok
Posts: 846
Joined: 29 Mar 2015, 05:22

Re: 4.9.6+ USAF vs Luftwaffe

Postby kwok » 27 Apr 2017, 18:28

If we're talking about 1v1's... the issue I think Tiger is trying to point out is AB is more well equipped to play the anti inf role while luft is a lot more well-rounded to handle more situations. That being said in a 1v1, AB will have more to deal with luft than luft to deal with AB.
That's the point I think he's trying to make. Do I agree? Not really but I see his point. One thing I will agree with though is that snipers still counter typical formula luft, not as hard as the use to though post reg5 buffs...


Return to “Balancing & Suggestions”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest