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.
drivebyhobo
Posts: 38
Joined: 08 Mar 2015, 00:53

4.9.6+ USAF vs Luftwaffe

Postby drivebyhobo » 20 Mar 2017, 17:33

So given that the changes in 4.9.6 have remade the PE's luftwaffe into the best air force in the mod in terms of power and price. I'd like to hear the justification for US airborne having much weaker support from the US air force.

For example, the US bombing run is a p47 that costs 215 munitions and drops 2x250lb bombs. The Stuka squadron costs 200 munitions and drops multiple 1000lb bombs into your opponent's base. The P47 dropping 2x250 lb bombs was not a common configuration. Usually it was equipped with 3x500lb bombs or 2x1000lb bombs or 2x1000lb + 1x500 lb bomb. It's absurd that the Stuka with half the horsepower of a P47 has double the load.

The Luft Doctrine already has access to excellent emplacements such as the Flak 88 and a decent heavy tank in the Panther D (it's not perfect but it's certainly offers much more power than the US Airborne's M10). Why is the PE luftwaffe delivering more ordinance than the USAF?

User avatar
Panzerblitz1
Team Member
Posts: 1080
Joined: 24 Nov 2014, 00:12
Location: Paris, right under the Eiffel tower.

Re: 4.9.6+ USAF vs Luftwaffe

Postby Panzerblitz1 » 20 Mar 2017, 17:46

Luftwaffe isn't superior to U.S. airforce or CW airforce, it just has been adjusted to be a bit more efficient, the air strikes is a little tiny part of the whole doctrine, you need to take in count the general units gameplay, tactics and expenses who are unique per docs... so its just not possible to compare only the 3 factions with air abilities like that, the Luft air attacks just doesn't suck as before, thats all.

And no we wil not give USAF is due, as they are acting exactely as they should act in game, sorry mate.

*NB: Poll removed, you can create another poll but without "Pro U.S." only answers with a consistent subject, this poll was looking more as "make the U.S. strikes better than luft" only.
When creating a Poll, it should be neutral, with more than a "yes" or "no" answers, thx.
Image

User avatar
Tiger1996
Posts: 2769
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 » 20 Mar 2017, 17:55

Exactly!
It's the first time I hear that Luft is superior to AB, it's actually the complete opposite in most PvP games as far as I can observe...

User avatar
Leonida [525]
Posts: 137
Joined: 26 Jun 2016, 09:25

Re: 4.9.6+ USAF vs Luftwaffe

Postby Leonida [525] » 20 Mar 2017, 18:04

In my opinion now luftwaffe finally performs good and perfectly in all its aspects, but I really dont think you can compare it with AB in this way. These are 2 different doctrines with different tree branches, kind of units and purposes. They are both great depending on situation.

drivebyhobo
Posts: 38
Joined: 08 Mar 2015, 00:53

Re: 4.9.6+ USAF vs Luftwaffe

Postby drivebyhobo » 20 Mar 2017, 20:24

.
Panzerblitz1 wrote:Luftwaffe isn't superior to U.S. airforce or CW airforce, it just has been adjusted to be a bit more efficient, the air strikes is a little tiny part of the whole doctrine, you need to take in count the general units gameplay, tactics and expenses who are unique per docs... so its just not possible to compare only the 3 factions with air abilities like that, the Luft air attacks just doesn't suck as before, thats all.

And no we wil not give USAF is due, as they are acting exactely as they should act in game, sorry mate.

Airstrikes are not a little tiny part of US airborne as it is for Luft and British airborne who have good things aside from their airstrikes and elite infantry.

-The British and PE airborne have high quality emplacements, the US has a quad 50.
-The British and PE airborne have solid but limited tank options. The US airborne has the m10 and unprotected sherman 76s.
-The British and PE airborne can easily heal their elite infantry with ambulances or gliders The US airborne have to rely on medic squads that must be manually activated to heal.

What does the US Airborne have in your opinion that offsets these deficiencies? I get that the meta was changed so that Luftwaffe doctrine can punch harder against the Armor doctrine as apparently the Flak 88 alone was not enough. Was it really necessary to make it so obsolete Stukas that were outmatched by IL-2s outperform P-47 Thunderbolts?

User avatar
Panzerblitz1
Team Member
Posts: 1080
Joined: 24 Nov 2014, 00:12
Location: Paris, right under the Eiffel tower.

Re: 4.9.6+ USAF vs Luftwaffe

Postby Panzerblitz1 » 20 Mar 2017, 20:51

And? so you think the US Airborne is weak when its one of the best faction in game? don't really understand where you're going here...
Image

kwok
Posts: 873
Joined: 29 Mar 2015, 05:22

Re: 4.9.6+ USAF vs Luftwaffe

Postby kwok » 20 Mar 2017, 21:01

I think.... airborne is a US Army division... so technically it might not have the greatest of air force support.

In terms of US AB's benefits to offset deficiencies: pure numbers allowed to be dropped. Off-map abilities like inpsired assault and free drop smoke, dropping fully upgraded howitzers, 76mm at guns, global decrease upgrade costs, hellcats for some reason???, the ever controversial incendiary grenades, gosh the list goes on...

User avatar
MarKr
Team Member
Posts: 1512
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 19:17
Location: Czech Republic

Re: 4.9.6+ USAF vs Luftwaffe

Postby MarKr » 20 Mar 2017, 22:33

@drivebyhobo:
US straffing costs 125ammo, fires in I'd say a bit shorter but wider area than ME109. When upgraded with AP ammo each bullet fired can penetrate lightly armored vehicles.

Luft straffing costs 150ammo, fires in thinner but longer area and also uses 20mm AT cannon which fires only 4 shots and the shots need to actually land on a vehicle to do something.

US single P47 bombing run 215 ammo and drops two strong bombs which cover bigger area and in the intersection of AoE of both bombs their combined destructive potential is higher than V1/sturmtiger rocket.

Luft single Stuka costs 170 ammo and drops one strong bomb. (when you have this, you cannot have Stuka patrol)

US patrol costs 280 ammo, sends planes with bombs (same planes and bombs as with "single strike") against vehicles. They do not adjust aim so if the targets moves it can escape the blast but the blast zone is sort of large so opponent doesn't always escape. Also sends "straffing planes" against infantry targets - same "aiming" problem as with bomber planes.

Luft Henschel patro costs 200 ammo, sends several Henschels which target vehicles in given area. Henschels actually aim but their gun only aims in certain forward-facing angle so targets can also move and prevent taking damage. Also since the plane targets a unit and not "ground", accuracy nerfs apply to it so if the tank (most US tanks have the option) covers itself in smoke, henschels have sort of huge accuracy nerf and can miss.

Luft Stuka patrol costs 200 ammo, sends several planes ONLY against emplacements in certain radius. If your opponent is foolish enough to cram several emplacements close to one another, then it is a sweet target for the ability. If your opponent uses minimum of emplacements, the ability if not useful at all. (when you have this, you cannot have single Stuka strike)

Image
The sizes do not proportionally fit the reality, but the picture gives the general idea of how it works.
Image

User avatar
Panzerblitz1
Team Member
Posts: 1080
Joined: 24 Nov 2014, 00:12
Location: Paris, right under the Eiffel tower.

Re: 4.9.6+ USAF vs Luftwaffe

Postby Panzerblitz1 » 20 Mar 2017, 23:48

kwok wrote:I think.... airborne is a US Army division... so technically it might not have the greatest of air force support.

In terms of US AB's benefits to offset deficiencies: pure numbers allowed to be dropped. Off-map abilities like inpsired assault and free drop smoke, dropping fully upgraded howitzers, 76mm at guns, global decrease upgrade costs, hellcats for some reason???, the ever controversial incendiary grenades, gosh the list goes on...


Well its the same with CW Airborne, they also got the best fighters, its just how the game was made, and frankly i don't see any problems with it, i don't see a strong air superiority for the U.S. armor cie or the infantry cie atm, i see doctrines more like "support/punch" forces, for me the U.S. Airborne is a breakthrough punchy force like the U.S. armored doc, when the Infantry doc is more a field support force.
Image

kwok
Posts: 873
Joined: 29 Mar 2015, 05:22

Re: 4.9.6+ USAF vs Luftwaffe

Postby kwok » 21 Mar 2017, 01:26

Ah, yeah I'm agreeing with you Pblitz, I was responding to drivebyhobo's question "What does the US Airborne have in your opinion that offsets these deficiencies?"

xGrayWolf
Posts: 8
Joined: 05 Mar 2017, 00:04

Re: 4.9.6+ USAF vs Luftwaffe

Postby xGrayWolf » 28 Mar 2017, 10:28

2 things that makes Luft better in 1v1s and 2v2s are:

1. Gebirgsjaeger - These guys shred allied infantry with their LMG. After achieving vet 3, they are really hard to deal with. Tanks are problematic counter, because at the point you have let's say shermans, cromwells, Luft player will have ATGs or AT halftracks or...
2. Panther - For some reason Luft has access to panther, which is a very potent tank destroyer, that is
a) fast
b) highly armored (as for PE standards)
c) hard to deal with with US counterpart (that is AB), because they have: Gebirgsjaeger. It's a pretty good combination to advance with panther and Gebs + Sniper.

In a lot of recent games, I and most of the players were rushing gebirgs -> airstrike -> panther and that tactic is super hard to deal with as US AB.

In conclusion, I think Gebirgs LMG is a bit overperforming and Luft as a doctrine should not have access to panther but rather something else that does not make Luft so omnipotent in 1v1s and 2v2s.

EDIT:

Also US AB has to pay for the Johnsons and AI hadnheld, so how about it would be switching to drop 101st (that's the first AB squad you unlock right?) with 1-2 Johnsons/BARs and they could actually buy Recoiless.
This change would make AB player more vunerable against early vehicles, but more efficent against early Luft and other elite infantry. That would make US AB player to also go for the vehicles and 57s early game too.


1 funny thing is, that Luft can build wirbelwinds and for some reason 1 is enough to counter Allied airstrikes most of the time (maybe cause PE also has AA emplacements???) :P

User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 2163
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: 4.9.6+ USAF vs Luftwaffe

Postby Warhawks97 » 28 Mar 2017, 13:25

The Panther is there because the Luftwaffe (or falli regiments) have received a handfull Panthers in reality. If you talk about realism then its more realistic to have Panthers for Luftwaffe as to have Gebirgs that drop on enemie ground with parachutes (They were flew in with ju52 when fallis captured airport like on creta. They dropped overall just once from airplanes and that was in italy over friendly ground).

So thats something you could really question rather than the fact they got panthers from the stock.


And no, its not the lmg34 that overperforms. Its actually the best balanced axis weapon in game. You should rather take a look at the G43. Thats where the gebirgs do get their damag output from.



And idk how the quad cal 50 performs against airplanes in recent patches but i think M16 halftrack can be a decent support for Airborne units in killing axis planes and helping killing their infantry. The Airborne doc has it also less hard to place quad cal 50´s on the map.



On the short hand Luft is strong. But this has always been. At the time gebirgs and fallis come they are the strongest default inf you can get in all aspects (weapons, health, abilities) while AB and commandos are rather weak. But in the long term AB can deal with Luft inf. More units, way cheaper reinforcment, weapon supports and so on.... upkeep, flexibility.


You might counter that with the argument that Luft has 88, Panther inf, VT etc. But its more a theoretical thing if you take a look for the cost. all of them, 88, Panther and inf cost over 400 or 500 MP to get. Together the upkeep is also high combined with high reinforce cost. Ive never seen ever many Luft inf units, Panther, several 88 and wirbelwind at once. Best i could effort in a 4 vs 4 was a Wirbelwind, one squad Gebirgs, two luft pio squads and then 3 88 (at the end a few more but there we had won already).

AB on the long hand can effort pretty much everything they have at their disposal.... 101st, AT guns, M10, Shermans, M16.... whatever you want. Each unit cost less and cost less upkeep on the long hand. the sherman (if you dont choose the 82nd) is so far the most expensive unit with 400 (+) MP.

So for Luft all the stuff is more a "can have" in theory at once. For AB you call it a "do have" in a game.



Thats stuff often forgotten in discussions on forums. They just look at the units available and create scenarios without checking if its really possible in games (cost wise). If you play on the largest maps you can get all that stuff. But there the res income is so extremely high that all sides can field and waste units in exorbitant numbers.

drivebyhobo
Posts: 38
Joined: 08 Mar 2015, 00:53

Re: 4.9.6+ USAF vs Luftwaffe

Postby drivebyhobo » 05 Apr 2017, 01:36

kwok wrote:I think.... airborne is a US Army division... so technically it might not have the greatest of air force support.

The US Air Force at the time was completely subordinate to the US Army. They were the US Army Air Force. As for how much support they gave? Vast squadrons of P-47s were dedicated to close air support missions as they were largely supplanted in the small need for air to air combat by the P51 Mustang. Even the P51 mustangs assisted in CAS because of the lack of aerial opponents.

The P47s unleashed such destruction on the Western Front that the ultimate close air support plane, the A-10 Thunderbolt II, derives its name from the P47 Thunderbolt.

kwok wrote:In terms of US AB's benefits to offset deficiencies: pure numbers allowed to be dropped. Off-map abilities like inpsired assault and free drop smoke, dropping fully upgraded howitzers, 76mm at guns, global decrease upgrade costs, hellcats for some reason???, the ever controversial incendiary grenades, gosh the list goes on...

A list of rather mediocre benefits goes on.
Some specific criticisms:
1. Pure numbers? The difference between a Fallschirmjaeger squad and the 82nd airborne is a mere 75 manpower. I'm not convinced that a 15% discount will allow me to use quantity as a weapon.
2. What fully upgraded howitzers? The pack howitzer doesn't have upgrades. Luftwaffe can air drop light howitzers too.
3. An airborne player lovingly micromanaging his airborne squads is supposed to manage a paper thin hellcat as well?
4. Airborne incendiary grenades are nice and all but severely limited by range. The squads that those grenades would be most valuable against are also the ones that make it very painful to get close to them. You're not fooling an Axis player on your intent if you're closing in that close. Personally I'd rather not risk expensive squads to deliver that grenade.

MarKr wrote:@drivebyhobo:
Luft Stuka patrol costs 200 ammo, sends several planes ONLY against emplacements in certain radius. If your opponent is foolish enough to cram several emplacements close to one another, then it is a sweet target for the ability. If your opponent uses minimum of emplacements, the ability if not useful at all. (when you have this, you cannot have single Stuka strike)

My biggest complaint is about this one. Luft Stuka patrol does much more than bomb emplacements.
1. It bombs trenches in addition to emplacements. The consensus of the infantry doctrine thread was that the best way to survive against Luft was to dig into emplacements and trenches. Kwok himself said his strategy was to pile BARs riflemen into trenches. If Luft Stuka Patrol is used against his infantry trenches, he either has to abandon them or face the high risk of losing the squads completely. Anyone using that strategy would have now made their problems much worse as they have given Luftwaffe infantry free trenches in what is likely a high value strategic sector.

2. It is also an excellent base bomber, capable of destroying multiple base buildings ( it drops bombs directly onto base buildings). As there are several planes that come in a Stuka Patrol, even a spread out base is just as vulnerable to a clustered one. The total effect can be much worse than a V1.

Warhawks97 wrote:So for Luft all the stuff is more a "can have" in theory at once. For AB you call it a "do have" in a game.

Flexibility is a strength not a weakness in the game. Does Luftwaffe need Flak 88s to win against Infantry Doctrine? Not in the slightest. However in the case that Luftwaffe must battle Armor Doctrine, Luftwaffe can easily punch just as hard as it does against Infantry Doctrine with it's Flak 88s. (To preempt whoever suggests that Calliopes can defeat 88s, i say good luck with that)

If anything, "can have in theory " is something that applies to Terror and Blitzkrieg doctrine which most often lose from being crippled before being given a chance to reach their potential.


Warhawks97 wrote: Ive never seen ever many Luft inf units, Panther, several 88 and wirbelwind at once. Best i could effort in a 4 vs 4 was a Wirbelwind, one squad Gebirgs, two luft pio squads and then 3 88 (at the end a few more but there we had won already).

That is the effectiveness of Luftwaffe flexibility. You choose to play them in a way that would preserve your team's momentum.

Think about that, you had 3 88s along with a respectable rapid response force. You could throw back nearly any infantry/armored attack against the critical points on the map. The enemy's only hope would be if they had a royal artillery player to saturate your positions.

Warhawks97 wrote:Each unit cost less and cost less upkeep on the long hand. the sherman (if you dont choose the 82nd) is so far the most expensive unit with 400 (+) MP.

Small correction: The most expensive US Airborne unit is the AB HQ squad which costs 680 mp and is in fact the most expensive of all infantry units in the game.
That kind of win by attrition is obscenely difficult to accomplish if the players are evenly matched in management. All it would take is a typical hit from the ever present PE mortar HT (which incidentally is the cheapest of the three mortar HTs) and you would be badly set back. Your attrition strategy was also nerfed in 4.9.6 as PE had their basic infantry price reduced.

User avatar
Tiger1996
Posts: 2769
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 » 05 Apr 2017, 02:30

My biggest complaint is about this one. Luft Stuka patrol does much more than bomb emplacements.
1. It bombs trenches in addition to emplacements. The consensus of the infantry doctrine thread was that the best way to survive against Luft was to dig into emplacements and trenches. Kwok himself said his strategy was to pile BARs riflemen into trenches. If Luft Stuka Patrol is used against his infantry trenches, he either has to abandon them or face the high risk of losing the squads completely. Anyone using that strategy would have now made their problems much worse as they have given Luftwaffe infantry free trenches in what is likely a high value strategic sector.

2. It is also an excellent base bomber, capable of destroying multiple base buildings ( it drops bombs directly onto base buildings). As there are several planes that come in a Stuka Patrol, even a spread out base is just as vulnerable to a clustered one. The total effect can be much worse than a V1.

The fact that the Stuka planes are targeting trenches, is definitely legit... Even though I actually think the damage is very underwhelming against trenches at the moment.. as I have noticed that for some reasons the trenches would usually survive a direct hit! Keeping in mind that it's 1,000 kg bomb o.O
And btw, I think they should no longer target sandbags and tank traps or barbed wires.

All airstrikes can be excellent base bomber tools; Or did you forget about the AB doc air patrol?? Yes it costs more, but it does not only target emplacements.. but also tanks, infantry and guess what... TRENCHES as well :P No professional players would manage to base bomb in such a cruel way though.. however, you should keep in mind that air patrols always need spotters... Otherwise they don't work at all.
And I guess you already know that AB doc has supply drops too... Which are extremely useful indeed.

Small correction: The most expensive US Airborne unit is the AB HQ squad which costs 680 mp and is in fact the most expensive of all infantry units in the game.

This is false I am afraid.
AB HQ squad has a sniper.. can reinforce from the air and is armed to teeth, not to mention that it's an officer unit too... Which provides bonus to all nearby AB squads as well.

However, the most expensive infantry unit on the other hand; is the PE SS squad... As you can't have it without firstly deploying the Haupt-officer squad. So, 400 MP + 550 MP are required! They will have a sniper.. but they aren't an officer squad themselves. Not to mention that they still need a lot of ammo to purchase weapon upgrades, moreover, they also can't reinforce from the air... But it's fine of course, because they are available to all PE docs, unlike the AB HQ squad which is only available in AB doc. But it's definitely not the most expensive infantry unit in the game...
Even the SAS are less expensive than this SS squad.. considering the fact that they are also armed to teeth by default. But again, I know SAS aren't available for all CW docs. So, it's obviously well balanced!

User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 2163
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: 4.9.6+ USAF vs Luftwaffe

Postby Warhawks97 » 05 Apr 2017, 12:43

You made some very valid points drivebyhobo. To be honest i forgot about the PE inf cost drop. That thing were i had that many 88´s was made during my "anti 88 crusade" lol. I spammed them even against arty players and won. But thats a different story. Nowadays 88´s do receive more damage from arty at least.


The 82nd is not supposed to counter fallis. They just cant unless its a close combat urban map. Closing in is suicide.

What we meant by winning in numbers is that you will get up to 5 squads of 101st that cost less in reinforcment. Those backed up by sherman or m16 or whatever. So you can deploy a mix of units way faster.



About the airstrikes you are actually right. We had discussions about AB air strikes a few times and had some suggestions already:

- Rocket strike unlocked together with bomb run. Sharing cooldown
- AB patrole drops bombs on buildings and emplacments as well. That actually found good support as AB could have a defensive breaking ability this way and as bombs are better in destroying buildings and emplacments.
- AB patrole would receive strafe, rocket and bomber plane and attacking also buildings and emplacments with bombs.
- There could be two types (or even three) of bomber patroles that share a cooldown. Like anti inf/vehice, anti vehicle/tank or anti building/emplacment bomber patrole. So Player choose whats needed. Or simply anti Vehicle/inf/tank and anti emplacment/building patrole. The reason for that is that a patrole that attacks all three target types (inf, vehicles, buildings) would cost like 250-300 ammo while it will rarely happen to have them all at one spot. So it would be divided in two or three different types of patroles to reduce the cost to an ammount that is realistically available.

Also its actually quite cool when different abilties are unlocked at once but which share the same cooldown when of them got used. Back in the days i didnt like them but now i looks pretty cool already.

But idk how many abilties can be listed in the command pannel. AB has already 7 (?).



That are just a few minds/ideas that crossed my minds or which have been discussed in the past already.

User avatar
MarKr
Team Member
Posts: 1512
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 19:17
Location: Czech Republic

Re: 4.9.6+ USAF vs Luftwaffe

Postby MarKr » 05 Apr 2017, 13:30

drivebyhobo wrote:My biggest complaint is about this one. Luft Stuka patrol does much more than bomb emplacements.
1. It bombs trenches in addition to emplacements. The consensus of the infantry doctrine thread was that the best way to survive against Luft was to dig into emplacements and trenches. Kwok himself said his strategy was to pile BARs riflemen into trenches. If Luft Stuka Patrol is used against his infantry trenches, he either has to abandon them or face the high risk of losing the squads completely. Anyone using that strategy would have now made their problems much worse as they have given Luftwaffe infantry free trenches in what is likely a high value strategic sector.

2. It is also an excellent base bomber, capable of destroying multiple base buildings ( it drops bombs directly onto base buildings). As there are several planes that come in a Stuka Patrol, even a spread out base is just as vulnerable to a clustered one. The total effect can be much worse than a V1.
1) The Stuka Patrol is meant to deal with static defenses that is emplacements and trenches - it is there in cases someone chooses "camp hard" tactics against Luft player. On the other hand if a player chooses camping tactics against Luft then the player knows he fights against Luft and knows the Stuka Patrol is there and he should act accordingly - if you have a defensive line made of some emplacements and trenches full of soldiers, is it so hard to buy 1 - 2 M16 and put them into static AA mode nearby? The ability sends planes from random directions so the Luft player cannot really avoid AA fire against these planes. Also we keep saying that small and narrow maps give advantage to planes however people don't are and keep playing these maps anyway and then complain how this or that is OP. If the mod is made for certain type of setup and people don't follow it, it is not a balance problem. (kwok is gonna say that we shouldn't have put 1v1 maps to new mappack, I know :D )

2)Bases are protected by 2, sometimes more AA emplacements and bases are often close to each other so the planes would be attacked by lots of AA and most of them or maybe all of them shot down. Though if people are using the Stuka Patrol to attack bases (I mean before it is clear the Allied lost anyway) I would expect people to complain about it here but you are the first one to mention it.

Warhawks97 wrote:But idk how many abilties can be listed in the command pannel. AB has already 7 (?).
This is the main issue with adding more abilities to command panel of certain doctrines. AB doc cannot fit any more abilities there. I read somewhere that it possible to extend the command panel but they said it needs scripting and iirc they also mentioned some sort of problem with it...I think it was something like that you make the script for certain monitor resolution and on other resolutions it bugs so you need to make script for each resolution? I am not sure but I remember there was some problem with it too.
Image

kwok
Posts: 873
Joined: 29 Mar 2015, 05:22

Re: 4.9.6+ USAF vs Luftwaffe

Postby kwok » 05 Apr 2017, 19:10

But you know Markr... your AA defense is easily countered with smoke which doesn't affect planes but heavily penalties AA. All it takes is a mortar halftrack which EVERY FUCKING PE PLAYER RELIES ON LIKE THE PUSSIES THEY ARE and the most effective counter to luft goes poof for a great price of 215mu (right? I can't remember the price). I only just thought of this now. It makes me despise luft more. But that's just me, always hating what's the latest popular meta.

Markr wrote:(kwok is gonna say that we shouldn't have put 1v1 maps to new mappack, I know :D )

We shouldn't have put 1v1 maps into new mappack, you know.

User avatar
Panzerblitz1
Team Member
Posts: 1080
Joined: 24 Nov 2014, 00:12
Location: Paris, right under the Eiffel tower.

Re: 4.9.6+ USAF vs Luftwaffe

Postby Panzerblitz1 » 05 Apr 2017, 19:14

Yes the PE mortar in a pain in the butt, like... the US Quad Halftrack, the CW Recce etc... ;)
Image

User avatar
MarKr
Team Member
Posts: 1512
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 19:17
Location: Czech Republic

Re: 4.9.6+ USAF vs Luftwaffe

Postby MarKr » 05 Apr 2017, 20:47

kwok wrote:But you know Markr... your AA defense is easily countered with smoke which doesn't affect planes but heavily penalties AA. All it takes is a mortar halftrack which EVERY FUCKING PE PLAYER RELIES ON LIKE THE PUSSIES THEY ARE and the most effective counter to luft goes poof for a great price of 215mu (right? I can't remember the price). I only just thought of this now. It makes me despise luft more. But that's just me, always hating what's the latest popular meta.
And when the PE player uses Mortar halftrack to smoke the AAs in given area, cannot he just as well smoke the emplacements and rush them with infantry, not needing the Stuka raid at all in the first place?

kwok wrote:We shouldn't have put 1v1 maps into new mappack, you know.
Yeah, I know...
Image

drivebyhobo
Posts: 38
Joined: 08 Mar 2015, 00:53

Re: 4.9.6+ USAF vs Luftwaffe

Postby drivebyhobo » 05 Apr 2017, 22:37

MarKr wrote:2)Bases are protected by 2, sometimes more AA emplacements and bases are often close to each other so the planes would be attacked by lots of AA and most of them or maybe all of them shot down.

A crashing stuka in your base is just as good as a bomb landing.

MarKr wrote:I would expect people to complain about it here but you are the first one to mention it.

Historically on this forum, many complaints that suggest any kind of Axis imbalance have been written off as Allied whining. Many Allied players simply avoid this forum and accept whatever happens. One example would be how PIATs for a long time became utterly useless and a waste of manpower. Did I complain? No, I chose the easier method of simply ignoring the unit and coordinating with a US teammate to overcome that issue.

MarKr wrote: is it so hard to buy 1 - 2 M16 and put them into static AA mode nearby?

Yes. It would be uneconomical. 660 manpower and 70 fuel for units that would be rendered defenseless in static AA mode. If i was an infantry doctrine player who relies on this tactic the most, I would choose to invest those resources elsewhere, namely in a Sherman 105 or howitzers with the hope that the emplacements hold long enough to allow bombardment to take their toll.

Nobody who uses Allied emplacements and entrenchment as a significant part of their strategy expects them to hold forever as the Axis (for the most part) have multiple high quality options for demolishing them. Luftwaffe until the introduction of the Stuka patrol was part of this exception as it's main method of demolishing emplacements was the PE mortar HT using the flame shell.

This made sense as it gave Luftwaffe a tradeoff, a tradeoff by design that encouraged co dependence between a Luftwaffe player and his teammates.

Whatever happened to one doctrine not being able to deal with everything? Luftwaffe was already buffed in recent patches, I am still mystified as to why it was necessary to give the further buff of being able to deal with everything.

Panzerblitz1 wrote:Yes the PE mortar in a pain in the butt, like... the US Quad Halftrack, the CW Recce etc... ;)

The Recce and US Quad are simple pains in the butt. Typical RTS units that can use kiting to great effect if micromanaged well.

The PE mortar HT on the other hand is a true game winning MVP. When has a Quad 50 or Reece ever been able to win games in 15 minutes or less? Flame a base emplacement, steal it and game over.

User avatar
MarKr
Team Member
Posts: 1512
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 19:17
Location: Czech Republic

Re: 4.9.6+ USAF vs Luftwaffe

Postby MarKr » 05 Apr 2017, 23:14

drivebyhobo wrote:A crashing stuka in your base is just as good as a bomb landing.
Would first require the plane to crash into the base...when the plane comes across the map how often it happens that it really crashes on some of your units? And here it would be awesome to have some objective statistics because people only remember the one case where the plane crashes on their units but forget or don't even notice the other 9 times where it crashes somewhere and causes no damage at all...just saying.

drivebyhobo wrote:Historically on this forum, many complaints that suggest any kind of Axis imbalance have been written off as Allied whining. Many Allied players simply avoid this forum and accept whatever happens. One example would be how PIATs for a long time became utterly useless and a waste of manpower. Did I complain? No, I chose the easier method of simply ignoring the unit and coordinating with a US teammate to overcome that issue.
I don't remember topics about PIATs for as long as I am on the forums. They were mentioned after 4.9.6 and in 4.9.7 they got some buff. It is sad that many people took this approach (remain silent) because when they bring up some problem people here say it is not a problem. But you have to try to see things from our perspective - many people register here just to ask for nerf of something that kicked their ass in one game and their usual strategy did not work against it and even if players here tell them what to do in such situation, they just insist that it is OP and needs nerf. I try to read posts here and see what both sides say and then come to some conclusion.

drivebyhobo wrote:Yes. It would be uneconomical. 660 manpower and 70 fuel for units that would be rendered defenseless in static AA mode. If i was an infantry doctrine player who relies on this tactic the most, I would choose to invest those resources elsewhere, namely in a Sherman 105 or howitzers with the hope that the emplacements hold long enough to allow bombardment to take their toll.
On one hand you say that Stuka Patrol is OP because during camping strategies the ability makes it possible to wreck the strategy completely and make a huge hole in the defensive line. I tell you that there is a counter to it and your response is that it is not economical...well you can invest 660MP and 70 fuel to protect emplacements and soldiers in trenches worth much more. Or you can make the defensive line and ask allies to provide some AA around to protect it (all other US docs have M16 or M15A1, CW have Crusaders and Boffors emplacements) - sometimes people don't cooperate but when you could coordinate with US team mates to substitute for PIAT's ineffectiveness asking for one AA could work too, no?

drivebyhobo wrote:Nobody who uses Allied emplacements and entrenchment as a significant part of their strategy expects them to hold forever as the Axis (for the most part) have multiple high quality options for demolishing them. Luftwaffe until the introduction of the Stuka patrol was part of this exception as it's main method of demolishing emplacements was the PE mortar HT using the flame shell.
So...let's remove Mortar HT from Luft? :D

drivebyhobo wrote:Whatever happened to one doctrine not being able to deal with everything? Luftwaffe was already buffed in recent patches, I am still mystified as to why it was necessary to give the further buff of being able to deal with everything.
Infantry is strong but can be destroyed rather quickly by Snipers or with the use of right abilities (Suppression from BARs). Also the planes can be shot down. Every doc has some AA unit. If people don't use them because...well whatever reason, then it is not balance problem. We said that not every doctrine should be able to deal with everything, true but that was when people wanted strong arty in BK doc - planes can be shot down, arty cannot, unless you destroy the unit. Offmap cannot be countered at all.
Image

kwok
Posts: 873
Joined: 29 Mar 2015, 05:22

Re: 4.9.6+ USAF vs Luftwaffen

Postby kwok » 06 Apr 2017, 00:59

@markr about smoke.
Yes you're right that THAT would be an option (to attack with units undersmoke). But the cost for that would be manpower rather than munitions. Both are valid types of attacks depending what resources you want to spend. And infantry have the ability to still harm the incoming attackers and prevent death. Smoke + Bombing run is pretty much risk free for a cost.

User avatar
MarKr
Team Member
Posts: 1512
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 19:17
Location: Czech Republic

Re: 4.9.6+ USAF vs Luftwaffe

Postby MarKr » 06 Apr 2017, 12:14

I forgot to mention that Stuka Patrol is reward ability for Single Stuka - Single Stuka can be used to attack any sort of target and you can send it in any direction you want. Stuka Patrol is sort of gamble. You pick Stuka Patrol, choose Luft doc and your opponent doesn't play RE or Infantry doc (or in general doesn't use emplacements often) and the the ability is just sitting there, gathering dust. Yes, you could say that you can see what opponent picks and then you decide what to choose...again, you cannot know that before the game starts (before you choose your reward units) so if you chose Single Stuka, the Stuka patrol is not even in question, if you chose Stuka Patrol and waited for opponent's choice and then selected Luft because you thought it would give you most advantage over opponent, isn't that part of the reward you get for waiting with your choice of doctrine? I mean if you play PE, wait what opponent picks, he picks US Armor doc...is it bad that you can easily get his tanks with you TH doc? I would say that in this case you have even more ways to negate opponent's forces than in "Luft vs Infantry doc" situation.

Anyway what is your angle here, kwok? Is it one of those "just sayin' " posts, or you consider the ability OP and want to nerf it or is it something else? I cannot honestly tell :D
Image

mofetagalactica
Posts: 25
Joined: 30 Jan 2017, 11:15

Re: 4.9.6+ USAF vs Luftwaffe

Postby mofetagalactica » 17 Apr 2017, 02:17

However, the most expensive infantry unit on the other hand; is the PE SS squad... As you can't have it without firstly deploying the Haupt-officer squad. So, 400 MP + 550 MP are required! They will have a sniper.. but they aren't an officer squad themselves. Not to mention that they still need a lot of ammo to purchase weapon upgrades, moreover, they also can't reinforce from the air... But it's fine of course, because they are available to all PE docs, unlike the AB HQ squad which is only available in AB doc. But it's definitely not the most expensive infantry unit in the game...
Even the SAS are less expensive than this SS squad.. considering the fact that they are also armed to teeth by default. But again, I know SAS aren't available for all CW docs. So, it's obviously well balanced!


Haupt-officer squad and the SS squad?. So, 400 MP + 550 MP , i dont know if you're counting well but i see 2 units, not one and the haupt-officer is really strong by himself.

drivebyhobo
Posts: 38
Joined: 08 Mar 2015, 00:53

Re: 4.9.6+ USAF vs Luftwaffe

Postby drivebyhobo » 27 Apr 2017, 04:27

MarKr wrote:I tell you that there is a counter to it and your response is that it is not economical...well you can invest 660MP and 70 fuel to protect emplacements and soldiers in trenches worth much more. Or you can make the defensive line and ask allies to provide some AA around to protect it (all other US docs have M16 or M15A1, CW have Crusaders and Boffors emplacements) -

I know building AA offers a degree of protection against aircraft and indeed in the case of the bofors bolsters your defenses against ground units.

My response is that building AA as an investment to protect allied emplacements/entrenchments is likely to end poorly. The protection provided by AA isn't very good. The Stuka Patrol even against heavily defended bases will still partially deliver their payloads. There is a very good chance that a stuka will even take out your AA defense. The most dangerous aspect to me however is that adding AA makes you an lucrative target for Axis artillery from a Luftwaffe's ally. It's a no win scenario that is best avoided by using offense as your best defense (if possible).

MarKr wrote: - sometimes people don't cooperate but when you could coordinate with US team mates to substitute for PIAT's ineffectiveness asking for one AA could work too, no?

Well now that I think of it, I think Royal Artillery's cheap dummy emplacements have a use now.

MarKr wrote:planes can be shot down, arty cannot, unless you destroy the unit. Offmap cannot be countered at all.

Plane abilities are not all the same. Strafing/rocket/bombing runs can be completely swatted where the enemy ends up with nothing at all for their munitions spent.

Patrols of all kinds however are no different than offmap artillery. A portion of the patrol will be rendered ineffective by RNG, but how is that any different from the scatter of arty? Arty scatter RNG that lands nowhere is the same result as a patrol plane being lost. So if anything the Stuka Patrol is the conservative choice and the Stuka run the risky option.

MarKr wrote:if you chose Stuka Patrol and waited for opponent's choice and then selected Luft because you thought it would give you most advantage over opponent, isn't that part of the reward you get for waiting with your choice of doctrine? I mean if you play PE, wait what opponent picks, he picks US Armor doc...is it bad that you can easily get his tanks with you TH doc?

There's nothing at all wrong with that. Tank hunter has a tradeoff in that it has no doctrinal capabilities to handle infantry. As a result, it has a vulnerability to Infantry doctrine and RAF in exchange for it's advantage over Royal Engineers and Armor doctrine.

What's wrong with Luftwaffe is that it now carries no doctrinal risk and that is why it is the king of 1v1s. Best infantry, excellent emplacements that can stonewall Armor doctrine completely and now it can quickly destroy any emplacement simcity giving it trouble.

Last of all, from a historical point of view, it's a real stretch to have obsolete Stuka dive bombers in large numbers dive bombing like its 1939 Poland when they were largely consigned to the Eastern Front where their aerial opposition was much less advanced.


Return to “Balancing & Suggestions”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider] and 1 guest