Do you have a balancing problem or do you want to make a suggestion for the game? You are at the right place.
- Posts: 3984
- Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
- Location: Germany
Afaik, the Wirbelwind isn't really better than the quad 50cal in terms of damage. When you take a look at the total damage each of these weapons are doing. You will find that the Wirbelwinds gun in a duration of 3 seconds has a rate of fire of 32 and a damage of 3-4 on each bullet. The quad 50cal however has the duration of 3.5-2.5 seconds with a lower rate of fire of 24 but each bullet does 20-15 damage. The Wirbelwind does have better accuracy than the quad 50cal but if the gun isn't doing that much damage it doesn't make much of a difference.
The AA guns feel really weird to me because the quad 20mm is not actually much better than the single 20mm (might even be worse because the single 20mm can somewhat 'reliably' penetrate and damage a Cromwell from the front but I think that's more of a bug involving target tables). And the quad 50cal isn't really that much better than a single 50cal because of how the aim times work. I think the Wirbelwind in particular is really underpowered right now because it's slow, has low maneuverability, and armor not strong enough to deflect 37mm guns. While also taking a long time to kill a single model on a infantry squad because of how the guns stats are set. The saving grace for the Wirbelwind is that the HE mode version of the gun suppresses and pins squads very easily; but I would rather see it do actual damage than be a mobile suppression vehicle.
quad 20 mm is much much worse than single 20 mm... quad is like HMG42 (with ap bullets vs vehicles). The single 20 mm is more similiar to 37 mm Ostwind gun.
The 20 mm guns are the most broken of all, the single as well as the quad.
@all those who still stick with this OP train....
The issue is "bad designed doc", not OP or not. 7 pages and you guys still havent got the point of the debate.
- Posts: 473
- Joined: 06 Dec 2014, 23:18
I think we can all figure out which side we are on, thank you. Also,, unless you have replays vs every person here (or ever), 5+ times in every matchup involving luft and allies, I don't think you will manage to invalidate this thread with, what, 2 games you won vs kwok's luft? Just because a doc can be beaten does not make it balanced.
kwok lies, he said he never lost with luft, and I just showed that he lost with luft in 1v1, and it's not the first time he loses with luft, I do not have the reps but I can say that he lost like 5 more games with luft in 2v2, and not only kwok lost with luft, there are also other pro players that lost with luft even in a regrettable way; "you can say that luft has this or that, and I can say that inf or re has this and that", but at the moment of demonstrating something, they are shown with facts, and the facts indicate that luft is not OP ... ... you have to keep in mind that tiger, bk champion, viper and I are saying that luft is not OP, tiger and bk champion play almost all the year, I also ... to kwok and hawks I do not see them playing very often , so, I think that those who are playing with more frequency can tell you that it is OP and that it is not OP ... even if you watch the repetition that i play with inf doc vs the luft of kwok, you will notice that he did not even use the Jumbo or long tomp or M10 to win, which means he was not yet using all the power of inf doc ... so why do people complain so much about a doctrine that is not the big deal? ... more, I can tell you that I almost do not use luft, because the weakness of luft is that it requires huge amounts of MP, which makes it vulnerable to the infantry spam or tanks that can make you lose territory quickly, I prefer SE or TH that has the hoctkiss
agree. i think people need to be more objective to talk about balance. we understand luftwaffe is maybe too strong and need tweak. but some people here are exaggerating too much. and this is not ok.