Poor Doctrine Design - Luft

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
Viper
Posts: 240
Joined: 06 Dec 2014, 23:18

Re: Poor Doctrine Design - Luft

Postby Viper » 06 Nov 2018, 22:34

Sukin-kot (SVT) wrote:Dude, that is not redesign, thats "lets remove a half of what doc has" bullshit.

cant agree more.

luftwaffe doctrine does not even need redesign. only panther asuf.d can be out along side firefly from royal air force doctrine.
and as said. the panther ausf.d can be reward for panther ausf.a in blitzkrieg doctrine. and raf should get some arty unlock instead of firefly.
and maybe leig18 no longer called by gebirgs. so the leig18 could become unlock in luftwaffe instead of panther. and suddenly people will stop crying.

User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 3152
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: Poor Doctrine Design - Luft

Postby Warhawks97 » 06 Nov 2018, 22:39

kwok wrote:i don't think fallsj should get a 25% damage reduction buff, it starts putting them in the same territory as gebirgs.


By far not. Rangers get as much hp as fallis and 25% damage reduction and their tp makes them 25% harder to hit by small arms.

Storms have 95 HP and get also 25% damage reduction by vet boost (which also affects their leader which then provides better bonuses as well)

AB same.
Actually the 82nd has as much, if not more HP as reg 5, same target table which makes them 25% harder to hit by while moving and i dont think anyone considers them as long living unit.


And now you want to tell me that such a buff which every vet upgrade provides to the upgraded unit would make them same as gebis with def training?
Do you really belive that this would make them stronger than current stormtroopers?
I dont think so.

def cover training is by far better, let alone the huge suppression reduction.

And have you tested the new cal 50 in the beta? It kills something so keep this in mind, too.




i feel inf in general should rely more on their position and weapon/damage output to set them apart otherwise you pretty just just make kch again. you'll have axis players complaining that their units are not able to run face first into mgs, throw a grenade, and kill the mg without a scratch (yeah, in game people have literally screamed "bullshit" because their inf was not able to survive point blank MG fire). if it means removing defensive bonuses for other infantry then so be it, i dont like how hmgs become obsolete. it makes infantry combat so dry when it's about who's rambo is more rambo.



And this is what all vet boosted elite units do, you would have to nerf all of them, not just fallis.
As i said, 25% damage reduction by vet upgrade is what all vet upgrades do to inf, why excluding fallis then?

maousaki
Posts: 32
Joined: 07 Jan 2017, 17:42

Re: Poor Doctrine Design - Luft

Postby maousaki » 13 Nov 2018, 16:14

I actually like the idea of making all elite units less tanky. Elite or not elite a bullet is a bullet and realistic damage model is one of the strong points of bk.

But then again that will make tanks more powerful, so tanks will need also some sort of adjustment.

User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 3152
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: Poor Doctrine Design - Luft

Postby Warhawks97 » 13 Nov 2018, 16:35

What makes infantry so vastly different is that we have different target tables and different healthpools as well as other boosts.

There are target tables like those of rangers that makes most small arms weapons losing 25% accuracy when shooting at rangers.
Then we have healthpools that range from 45 to 95 HP basic.
And finally boosts that reduce damage by x% (always or under certain circumstances etc)


For tanks its less the case. Their healthpools are different but most differences are between basic tanks (mediums) and heavies. Each tank has his own target table but there generally all tanks are very well "hitable" (only few are pretty hard to hit here like several axis tds that have a low silouette) and there is actually no boost you can unlock that suddenly drops the taken damage by a hit (usually only slight armor buffs or HP buffs from upgrades).

So tanks dont have that "issue" that they are hard to hit, taking reduced damage and gain health boosts (like from veterancy) at once and there arent "officer" tanks that boost the surviviability of nearby tanks and they dont benefit from cover.


In short that means that its much harder to balance infantry correctly than tanks bc all you need to know about tanks is: How good is their armor and what guns do i have. Like there comes a sherman? I have a TD with Panther canon (in ambush) and it will stop the sherman, no matter what. There comes a Tank IV and i have a 17 pdr? Tank IV gonna die.

Infantry is a lot more tricky here. A 0 vet stormtrooper squad and no cover runs into my HMG 1917? It gonna die. The same squad with cover does it? Not sure who wins. The same squad with vet 1 upgrade and thus 25% reduced vet, cover and perhaps leader squad bonus? my HMG wont hold it off.



So simply inf is affected by a lot more factors it makes it harder to set the point where the "bullet is a bullet".

With tanks this is generally a lot easier. Sure there can be cases where a 17 pdr stops a KT and in the next moment it cant do that. But generally you have a more clear idea what can stop which tank and there are no doctrinal unlocks that makes tanks taking suddenly massively less damage, exception here is the Zimmerit from TH doc.

User avatar
MarKr
Team Member
Posts: 2537
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 19:17
Location: Czech Republic

Re: Poor Doctrine Design - Luft

Postby MarKr » 13 Nov 2018, 17:26

"bullet is a bullet" yes, it is true but the different stats such as HP and damage taken is there to make a difference between basic and elite infantry. Yes, I know that some people would like to make "elites" to only have more abilities and so more tactical options but then again - if they die in a matter of seconds, will their high price be justified? Probably not.

Also these things make the soldiers harder to kill which can represent better usage of cover and possibly other tactics that elite units would/could use to help them survive that are in other ways impossible to implement. I am not saying that some buffs can stack to ridiculous values but that is something that can be further tweaked.

In general I don't like ways of thinking like "bullet is a bullet so it should be same deadly to any soldier" - in its very basic sense it is true, ofcourse. However this way of thinking is based in real world but does not take into account other aspects of the reality too - this is not 18th century where armies stand in lines and take turns in shooting each other until one side loses. Soldiers can use cover, can have different training which in turn increases their survivability and effectiveness. And it is again not so easy as to say "they can use cover better so they should be harder to hit but not have more HP - this would lead to situations where the "hard to hit" aspect stacks to high values and the unit would be incredibly hard to hit even if (e.g.) standing directly in front of enemy MG. Or a bomb would fall on their heads and deal no damage because the "damage missed them" (as it used to be the case with Gebirgs). So there is a mix of factors that can increase the overall survivability in order to prevent situations where one factor gets over-stacked.
Image

kwok
Team Member
Posts: 1362
Joined: 29 Mar 2015, 05:22

Re: Poor Doctrine Design - Luft

Postby kwok » 19 Nov 2018, 22:42

Hi everyone, I'm back and ready to rumble.

Warhawks97 wrote:What makes infantry so vastly different is that we have different target tables and different healthpools as well as other boosts.

There are target tables like those of rangers that makes most small arms weapons losing 25% accuracy when shooting at rangers.
Then we have healthpools that range from 45 to 95 HP basic.
And finally boosts that reduce damage by x% (always or under certain circumstances etc)


For tanks its less the case. Their healthpools are different but most differences are between basic tanks (mediums) and heavies. Each tank has his own target table but there generally all tanks are very well "hitable" (only few are pretty hard to hit here like several axis tds that have a low silouette) and there is actually no boost you can unlock that suddenly drops the taken damage by a hit (usually only slight armor buffs or HP buffs from upgrades).

So tanks dont have that "issue" that they are hard to hit, taking reduced damage and gain health boosts (like from veterancy) at once and there arent "officer" tanks that boost the surviviability of nearby tanks and they dont benefit from cover.


In short that means that its much harder to balance infantry correctly than tanks bc all you need to know about tanks is: How good is their armor and what guns do i have. Like there comes a sherman? I have a TD with Panther canon (in ambush) and it will stop the sherman, no matter what. There comes a Tank IV and i have a 17 pdr? Tank IV gonna die.

Infantry is a lot more tricky here. A 0 vet stormtrooper squad and no cover runs into my HMG 1917? It gonna die. The same squad with cover does it? Not sure who wins. The same squad with vet 1 upgrade and thus 25% reduced vet, cover and perhaps leader squad bonus? my HMG wont hold it off.



So simply inf is affected by a lot more factors it makes it harder to set the point where the "bullet is a bullet".

With tanks this is generally a lot easier. Sure there can be cases where a 17 pdr stops a KT and in the next moment it cant do that. But generally you have a more clear idea what can stop which tank and there are no doctrinal unlocks that makes tanks taking suddenly massively less damage, exception here is the Zimmerit from TH doc.


I've been caught. Now I must reveal, I am a "bullet is a bullet" advocate. I think the concept of HP is an absolute waste of the CoH engine and just generally immersion breaking (hence if you see the features of my mod on how I convert HP to morale, don't worry I wont advertise here). Factors that "make soldiers harder to kill" can be represented in different ways than HP. For example, a factor where elite infantry use cover more effectively, why isn't the buff tied to cover? why are they getting blanket all situation defensive buffs? just stuff like that, i could go on, but need to speak specifically about luft now.

Anyways that being said, what is the difference between giving every other elite inf durability bonuses but not fallsj? The difference is fallsj have assault based weapons and others, especially when trying to differentiate from gebirgs, do not. The only other unit that's comparable with both offensive and defensive buffs would be stormtroopers, but their meant to be diffrentiated from the base grenadiers who receive almost no buffs except for mp44 upgrades.
Honestly, the amount of damage that fallsj can dish out is so insane that i think they should require SOME skill to get them in the proper position to roll out that damage. Is it really so difficult for players to use their infantry with some brains? Are defensive buffs really that necessary? It's almost as if come late game cover doesn't even matter any more because all the inf with their super buffs, theyre just right click to kill basic inf and anti-emplacement units to clear way for tanks.

ANYWAYS
sounds like this topic is dead and some greater decisions are being made about what's going to happen to luft. Would like to hear what the decision makers are thinking.

Mr. FeministDonut
Posts: 268
Joined: 13 Aug 2015, 21:05

Re: Poor Doctrine Design - Luft

Postby Mr. FeministDonut » 20 Nov 2018, 01:04

I would like to see Luft actually be grounded doctrine with no paratroopers falling from the sky, being them able to come as call-in, from buildings or just replacing heavy grens, coming with default kars and perspective to buy those OP weapons with shreks.
Even more, I think mixing US inf and air doctrine with luft, making it more infantry approached gameplay would be interesting in PE, than usual 1-2 units running around and killing everyone in sight

User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 3152
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: Poor Doctrine Design - Luft

Postby Warhawks97 » 20 Nov 2018, 15:56

Doesnt sound bad. Actually its back to the roots like in vcoh. Luftwaffe forces as additional infantry units to others that offers new abilties and ambush capabilties.

A doctrine focused on infantry that can count on the support of 88 guns and a few air strikes. Doesnt sound bad.

kwok
Team Member
Posts: 1362
Joined: 29 Mar 2015, 05:22

Re: Poor Doctrine Design - Luft

Postby kwok » 20 Nov 2018, 18:41

omg warhawks. that's literally what the redesign is about hence the no hetzers.

sure the have gebirgs/no gebirgs is details and distraction because effectively the unit "still exists", we are literally debating if it should be named or not. the main point of the redesign though IS STILL focused on inf/off-maps/defenses.
I added more inf flexibility/capability, i added more offmaps, i added more defenses.

User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 3152
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: Poor Doctrine Design - Luft

Postby Warhawks97 » 20 Nov 2018, 18:49

well, that topic is old so i forgot details. But when i remember correctly there was something like 7 CP 88, luftwaffe drops and even the idea about "Luftwaffe HQ" like a copy of AB doc.

That here was the first time someone mentioned the reg 5 itself as a call in spawing offmap/house. So its different to your original idea.

kwok
Team Member
Posts: 1362
Joined: 29 Mar 2015, 05:22

Re: Poor Doctrine Design - Luft

Postby kwok » 20 Nov 2018, 18:52

i see. so you think it should deviate from AB doc and be more similar to USA inf doc?

personally i think spawning out of houses is a bad mechanic. it breaks immersion and it's hyper map dependent on whether it's useful/not useful.


EDIT: yo warhawks come on steam i want to show you my mod lol

kwok
Team Member
Posts: 1362
Joined: 29 Mar 2015, 05:22

Re: Poor Doctrine Design - Luft

Postby kwok » 25 Nov 2018, 06:51

i felt this fitting because players were talking to me of forum about my proposed rework.
2ndmb2.jpg

User avatar
Death_Kitty
Posts: 49
Joined: 15 Apr 2017, 18:20

Re: Poor Doctrine Design - Luft

Postby Death_Kitty » 25 Nov 2018, 08:13

Can I get the above post on a bloody T-shirt!

The New BK Champion
Posts: 223
Joined: 11 Feb 2018, 22:09

Re: Poor Doctrine Design - Luft

Postby The New BK Champion » 25 Nov 2018, 10:53

Oh yeah cuz BK is uncouterable by armor or RE, def doc is uncouterable by RA or Inf, TH uncounterable by inf doc or AB (consider hotchkiss fix), SE is uncounterable by RA...

I am getting tired of people saying that axis nerfs are obligatory, cuz game is still biased towards axis. Just redesign problematic docs: luft and terror and we are good. Don't overnerf axis cuz it's already pain to play them (less than it used to be a few patches ago tho).

kwok
Team Member
Posts: 1362
Joined: 29 Mar 2015, 05:22

Re: Poor Doctrine Design - Luft

Postby kwok » 25 Nov 2018, 18:29

But that's what we are trying to do illa, exactly as you say: redesign problematic docs: luft.
you take away the hetzer you dont make it impossible for luft to counter tanks, it still has 50mm, 75m, marder, 75mm armored cars, 88s, panzerschrekcs, droppable panzerschrecks, how much more is needed?

removing the hetzer builds a natural counter with armor and RE doc. meanwhile other PE docs are counters to armor (SE kind of going even depending how it's played).

Meanwhile, you take a balance like adding the arty crowmwell to RAF and you gotta backpedal that change within the soonest patch. it's not a matter of axis/allies, and you can ask my ideas for other docs, i'm fine redesigning others, i'm just choosing to talk about luft right now because it is, as you said, a problematic doc.

Also, because it seems it's important for people to know: i voted for well-rounded doctrines. but the devs say they are doing specialized. so i need to make my design proposal for that. isn't my fault that people didn't vote and convince the devs to change their design approach.
viewtopic.php?f=15&t=2223

The New BK Champion
Posts: 223
Joined: 11 Feb 2018, 22:09

Re: Poor Doctrine Design - Luft

Postby The New BK Champion » 25 Nov 2018, 19:10

I understand that but still, hetzer is too basic for PE to be taken away. It's the only of all AT solutions for PE that can survive a fight with sherman. Also if we flow your logic then why the hell is firefly available in all cw docs? Raf has strikes, gammons, 4 piats...

I advotate for leaving axis alone. If not, at least nerf allies equally. If we can see design flaws in luft, then we can't turn a blind eye on allies.

kwok
Team Member
Posts: 1362
Joined: 29 Mar 2015, 05:22

Re: Poor Doctrine Design - Luft

Postby kwok » 25 Nov 2018, 19:55

The New BK Champion wrote:I understand that but still, hetzer is too basic for PE to be taken away. It's the only of all AT solutions for PE that can survive a fight with sherman. Also if we flow your logic then why the hell is firefly available in all cw docs? Raf has strikes, gammons, 4 piats...

I advotate for leaving axis alone. If not, at least nerf allies equally. If we can see design flaws in luft, then we can't turn a blind eye on allies.


50mm pens shermans fairly reliably and has AP rounds. 75mm reliably pens shermans AND has wheels. marder reliably pens shermans. 88s shit on shermans. panzerschrecks can handle shermans from defensive ambush positions. Have players really become so dependent on the hetzer crutch that they've forgotten how to use basic tactics? Theyre shermans, not jumbos.

as for the fireflies, yeah personally i dont really care for fireflies in all CW doctrines, haha someone "accused" me of the same and i responded "yep, get rid of them."
BUT AGAIN it is because of how devs WANT to drive their doc design.
BTW, the role of the firefly is very different than that of the hetzer. Ironically the ocunter to the firefly is cheaper medium tanks, you will essentially outdrain a CW player who spams fireflies with a stug which can reliably pen a firefly. Sure you leave it to a bit of RNG and mostly skill, but the role of teh firefly isn't to counter the medium all available tanks found in axis, but it's to counter the heavy tank meta that every axis player just guns 90% of the time. The firefly is meant to be a cheaper skill-based solution against heavies, the hetzer is meant to be a tier above tank destroyer against all allied medium tanks. That role difference i think is key, but regardless you're right in that the firefly seems unfitting in RAF given all the other options RAF has and how RAF was intended to play. I wouldn't say it's the same logic as the hetzer though.

User avatar
Death_Kitty
Posts: 49
Joined: 15 Apr 2017, 18:20

Re: Poor Doctrine Design - Luft

Postby Death_Kitty » 13 Dec 2018, 05:00

The New BK Champion wrote:Oh yeah cuz BK is uncouterable by armor or RE, def doc is uncouterable by RA or Inf, TH uncounterable by inf doc or AB (consider hotchkiss fix), SE is uncounterable by RA...

I am getting tired of people saying that axis nerfs are obligatory, cuz game is still biased towards axis. Just redesign problematic docs: luft and terror and we are good. Don't overnerf axis cuz it's already pain to play them (less than it used to be a few patches ago tho).


Lazer beam StG's. Pen-a-sherman-with-anything (TM). Germans hard to play. k. what do i know? On a serious note:

My problem with German docs isn't too big. I generally won't say Germans OP plz nerf without a good reason. But the idea that there is a parity between german docs and allied docs is a bit silly. Sure CW hold up fairly well, and Wehrmacht generally is lower on the bullshit ladder, but the disparity between Americans and PE irritates me. I throw shade at the StG all the time, but I know it is more of a PR problem than a German one...

My problem with the balance is that I get the impression that the devs are very concerned with everything on german side being viable, while not giving any consideration to allies because what are they gonna do? They don't have anything better; they have to use what they got. The whole sherman 76 issue is my main example here. "Lets not nerf tank 4 or buff 76 because then people might stop building it". Have you lot ever considered that German docs might be just a little bit bloated? Luft and Terror being prime examples. People complain that if you nerf Tank IV, then Germans will just switch to their nearest TD... so how about removing the TD? Its stuff like this I think is needed. A lot of the vital quality-quantity stuff has been mostly patched up. 50 cal change, hotch nerf, rifle buff. Now I think its time to go after bloated docs. Could CW's fireflies be an example here? maybe. But id say Germans are far more guilty of this stuff that CW is. And that's something that I think people need to start seeing. Will it mean learning a new "meta". Yeah. Will it mean Germans might have to be on the back foot at more parts of the game? yeah. But it will make the game more fun.

The thing that irritates me here (to get back on track) is that if you remove the firefly, CW RAF has to find new ways to kill german late-game heavies. Luft switches to any of the options kwok mentioned above, which are not that great in terms of leaps in logic.

User avatar
ShadowIchigo
Posts: 332
Joined: 26 Nov 2014, 20:25
Location: Philadelphia Born N Raized, US

Re: Poor Doctrine Design - Luft

Postby ShadowIchigo » 13 Dec 2018, 11:46

I really hope this post gets serious attention. I could write a lot to coincide what you wrote, but i am lazy and wish not to do so. I will simply just say i agree wholeheartedly with what you have said kwok and would be grateful if some type of change was finally made to this doctrine. I also have some comments on Tank Hunter doctrine, but another time i will make a topic for that.

User avatar
Shanks
Posts: 591
Joined: 22 Nov 2016, 22:02

Re: Poor Doctrine Design - Luft

Postby Shanks » 13 Dec 2018, 12:19

I just want to tell the relatively new "dev kwok", which seems to me that luft is fine as it is now, nothing more .... kwooookwokkkkkkkkkkkkkwooooooooooooookkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk

User avatar
Redgaarden
Posts: 323
Joined: 16 Jan 2015, 03:58

Re: Poor Doctrine Design - Luft

Postby Redgaarden » 13 Dec 2018, 15:07

Could we change the FG42 moving accuracy to 0.5 from 0.75?

One of my reason for this is that most fire on the move weapons had gotten some kinds of nerf compared to their Vcoh counterpart.
(Allied Fanboy Here) M1 garand having a 0.15 accuracy penalty on the move, M1 Thompson losing its 50% burst duration on the move, Whopping 5 bullets lost there.

But my real reason is to make it more aline to the BAR which has a 0.50 moving penalty. Having 6 beefed up BARS in one squad is kinda insane in my book.
Rifles are not for fighting. They are for building!

kwok
Team Member
Posts: 1362
Joined: 29 Mar 2015, 05:22

Re: Poor Doctrine Design - Luft

Postby kwok » 13 Dec 2018, 16:09

Opinion: Oooh I like that but man would that be a meta changer.

@shanks
Haha it’s not my decision
Last edited by kwok on 13 Dec 2018, 22:58, edited 1 time in total.

MenciusMoldbug
Posts: 80
Joined: 17 Mar 2017, 12:57

Re: Poor Doctrine Design - Luft

Postby MenciusMoldbug » 13 Dec 2018, 17:06

Problem with Luftwaffe is that they are both comically easy to beat with the right setup and impossibly hard if you are not doing that one right setup.

As Luftwaffe you have literal space marine squads that hold the best weapons to exist in the game. On any straight up infantry fights that doesn't involve Snipers; Luftwaffe will always win if the player using them is decent enough to utilize cover. Not because of how their guns are so strong but their cost efficiency vs regular infantry is so strong. You think paying 550 MP and 45 to reinforce a member in a Gebirsjager or Fjr 5 squad is expensive? A riflemen is 25 per man, so the second a Fjr kills two riflemen models he has paid himself off. Look at the ridiculous reinforce cost of US AB squads in comparison; 50 reinforce cost for the airborne HMG? 46 for the airborne mortar? 36 for the airborne AT gun? 60 for the observation squad? 82nd Airborne Rangers cost 44 a man to reinforce, and consider how strong they are compared to Fjr in comparison with their thompsons vs FG42s.

So what's the comically easy way to beat Luftwaffe? All you have to do as US is:

- Double Snipers

- HE Sherman

That's it, that's all you have to do to kill Luftwaffe. Bleed them without taking a single MP loss. The more manpower wasted countering shermans with hetzers, marders, pak 50s, and even Luftwaffe infantry; the better off US is. Not to mention double snipers bleed Luftwaffe real good with their rapid sniping ability. CW has to make a few adjustments such as using instead staghounds, AA crusdars, HE cromwells, or RAF double snipers. But it follows the same game plan, all you have to do to render Luftwaffe useless is not incur huge manpower losses infantry-wise.

Notice that any game where Luftwaffe is doing extremely good (vet 4-5, 50+ inf kills, etc.) there is a distinct lack of snipers and/or HE vehicles stopping them in their tracks. Because of how Luftwaffe is structured; using any other method which involves losing a lot of infantry (or tanks) to battle their paratroopers is doomed to failure. This means the method I talk about is not actually just a meta strategy but literally the only pathway to success vs decent Luftwaffe players. What else you going to do? Luftwaffe bleeds every other infantry unit in the game. Thanks to their paradrop reinforce they can literally stay on the field forever; while a Ranger squad will eventually have to retreat to a safer position after taking some losses.

So my real problem with Luftwaffe is less to do with how good the synergy is in their doctrine tree. More to do with how railroaded you become when you see someone goes Luftwaffe. It's either Sniperway or the Highway; you take a swing expecting something different to happen doing something else and your out.

The New BK Champion
Posts: 223
Joined: 11 Feb 2018, 22:09

Re: Poor Doctrine Design - Luft

Postby The New BK Champion » 13 Dec 2018, 17:12

"Luft is fine right now" is a delusion. It has been working fine, yes, but because we all got used to it. We all remember our first impression when we met Fallshimrjager - "fucking op lol".
Everybody knows luft needs a rework. In both aspects: basic squad loadout and functionality and general purpose of the whole doc. Right now it's a mess. It's an unbalanced mix between units that have been used by "luftwaffe" realistically, like panthers, which don't fit at all gamplay-wise, with OP weapons like fg42, 88, henshels, with very few weak points that should be characteristic for Air docs.

Mencius wrote here meanwhile and I agree totally with him. His analysis is on point. Luft is also broken because how people want to play it. Rambo doc. I am looking forward to complete rework of Falls and Gebirgs, because they are the main point why this doc is so weird for me.

User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 3152
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: Poor Doctrine Design - Luft

Postby Warhawks97 » 13 Dec 2018, 18:57

What menicus said is true against 90% of the meta Luft players (including those considered decent players) bc most of them want to get as many para troops on the field as fast as possible. They rush out 2 gebis and 2 rg 5 before they build the tank hunter or support command which they first start to build when they are facing more and more crusaders and HE shermans.

The real good luft players usually go for gebis simply bc they are defensive and have def boost at default and need no more upgrade like reg 5 to become really survivability champions. So they usually keep their starting units alive (grens, 28 mm, mortar HT, 50 mm, krad), get gebis, rush Hetzer and build this silly Vampire "legal Map Hack" vehicle. In order to bolster defenses, securing flanks etc they do start to drop sd2 on their flanks and so on. And from then on they start bleeding you out, no matter what you send. And after every engagment their entirely invisible force (inf, hetzer, krad, 50 mm and vampire) crouched like two more meters closer to your base. Only a good mix nonstop arty barrages (calli jeep is the best here bc it comes early) that kills the 50 mm AT gun and aggressive rifle/captain/vehicle mix does the job and grab as much land as you can get before hetzer comes. From then on use shermans and snipers to repell their inf rushes, try to always keep the intelligence advantage bc you have to keep track where his units are going to be ambushed next (in case neither has reconassaince, luft wins bc every unprepared and uncoordinated battle aka Kursk tank battle is a clear win for luftwaffe inf due to their rambo design) and bleed luftwaffe slowly out by holding map, using supply yard, boosted rangers and enough shermans and M16 AA. And even then it sometimes turns into a heavy "final last stand battle" which a well placed henschel attack can decide.


Return to “Balancing & Suggestions”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests