DBP Balance Feedback

12829313334

Comments

  • #902
    2 years ago
    This the best time to give 1 more man to ost panzergrenadiers and granadiers because is the only facction that have just 4 man in the platoon. For banlance with other facction. OKW HAS 5 men in falksgrenadiers. UKF has 5 too. USF has 5. SOVIET HAS 6. PLEASE THIS IS WHAT WE ASKING TO BALANCE THE GAME.
  • #903
    2 years ago
    > @Chilonic3 said:
    > This the best time to give 1 more man to ost panzergrenadiers and granadiers because is the only facction that have just 4 man in the platoon. For banlance with other facction. OKW HAS 5 men in falksgrenadiers. UKF has 5 too. USF has 5. SOVIET HAS 6. PLEASE THIS IS WHAT WE ASKING TO BALANCE THE GAME.

    Well, UKF tommies have 4 upgradable to 5, but you make a good point. At the very least, you should be able to upgrade to 5.
  • #904
    2 years ago
    Ideally infantry combat would be equal, but it isnt so there lies one of the problems. Allies dont ~NEED~ medium tanks to fight axis infantry like ost does, the result of this is allies can pump their fuel into TDs designed to have an easy go at the heaviest tank the enemy can fight because of THAT the panther fails its role. The panther SHOULD be dominating TANK combat and applying support when it doesnt need to do that BUT because of the infantry matchups and the TD potency medium tank play is nonexistant and with it the panthers role. TDs SHOULD beat the panther. Else it lacks a good counter, the problem is theres little need to buy anything BUT TDs because allied infantry has no problem walking over the enemy. To add to that, allies have FANTASTIC tools for breaking up defensive lines and scattering enemy forces (and, cause relic those units deal dick all to friendly troops meaning freindly fire is all but impossible)
  • #905
    2 years ago

    Is the update release date already set?

  • #906
    2 years ago
    KatitofKatitof Posts: 6,672

    @thedarkarmadillo said:
    Ideally infantry combat would be equal, but it isnt so there lies one of the problems. Allies dont ~NEED~ medium tanks to fight axis infantry like ost does, the result of this is allies can pump their fuel into TDs designed to have an easy go at the heaviest tank the enemy can fight because of THAT the panther fails its role. The panther SHOULD be dominating TANK combat and applying support when it doesnt need to do that BUT because of the infantry matchups and the TD potency medium tank play is nonexistant and with it the panthers role. TDs SHOULD beat the panther. Else it lacks a good counter, the problem is theres little need to buy anything BUT TDs because allied infantry has no problem walking over the enemy. To add to that, allies have FANTASTIC tools for breaking up defensive lines and scattering enemy forces (and, cause relic those units deal dick all to friendly troops meaning freindly fire is all but impossible)

    The panther WAS dominating tank combat.
    That's EXACTLY why its being brought down.

    You literally didn't need to use ANYTHING ELSE for AT 2v2 and above - it was the only axis armored unit to ever exist in late game, no stugs, no JP4s, no P4s, no ostwinds, just panther spam.

    Because of that uncontested domination it needed to be brought down and be contested by allied TDs, which it rolled over as well in equal numbers.

  • #907
    2 years ago
    @Katitof in team games sure, anything can be strong in team games. But the panther loses to allied TDs unless they fail to take any precautions (mines or hand AT) which isnt hard to do. The panther only does better in team games because its relatively cheaper because of resourse inflation and thats the only reason. You can use them like durable t34s practically. But even then, it requires wolf packs to really do anything.

    Id rather bp3 require t4 built then add some shit to it and make t4 an up tier for ost. Panther shouldnt be in the okw lineup with it as accessable as it is. It throws balance being so easily acquired with a built in fall back(or 2) should you need something quicker at no extra cost.
  • #908
    2 years ago

    The update is live.

  • #909
    2 years ago
    SvanhSvanh Posts: 159

    I don't understand why "dominating tank combat" is supposed to be a reasonable unit role. This would mean that there was never a reason to use anything but Panthers. We don't want slightly more tolerable german-flavoured Comet spam. :)

    It has continually amazed me that no one has posted the stats. The Panther's frontal armour (320) is second only to the King Tiger and IS-2 (375). As long as the Panther has this armour it must be countered by allied TDs, the allied hard-counter to heavy armour. The penetration profile on the Panther's main gun (220/240/260) also indicates that it isn't for fighting TDs as they have armour values of 130-160 and are better countered with a Stug or Jagdpanzer.

    As this is the same penetration profile on the heavy allied tank destroyers, one should conclude that the Panther is primarily for dueling heavy and super-heavy tanks. The Panther out-ranges the Comet, Churchill, Pershing, KV-1, KV-2, KV-8, and IS-2 while matching or exceeding most of them in armour and penetration. In short, the Panther already excels in its role as a hard-counter to allied heavy armour. I don't see a justification for improving its efficiency much further and especially not against one of its hard-counters, the Jackson.

    The counters to heavy allied TDs are Stugs, Jagdpanzers, AT guns, possibly Pumas, and infantry AT. I wouldn't build a Panther until the enemy deploys their heavy armour. :)

  • #910
    2 years ago
    @Svanh dominating tank combat as in the best tank at fighting tanks, not tank destroyers, not infantry, not team weapons. Tanks. Like t34s and cromwells and favourable returns against the comet. The PROBLEM with the comet (as you brought it up) was there was no unit it could not engage with premium effeciency. Infanty? Oops just got wiped in a single shell. AT guns? Good thing it could shoot WP out to 80 range and toss nades up close. Tank destroyers? High speeds (including almost always available and cost free blitz) incredible moving accuracy (you know the usf thing, but on brit tanks) and incredible range leaving 1 nondoc unit that outranged it out of both axis factions and tracking meant landing a hit could mean a follow up because of the combined range, speed and unit highlight. Tanks? Out gunned and outranged, more mobility too meant it was able to keep its tiger/pershing level armour facing them at all times. Games dragging on only meant more comets and less that could stop them. Even the panther would only win 3/5 times in a slugfest, and anything else was HEAVILY in favour of the comet. It eas a nondoc pershing that you could build non stop if you vould afford it.

    The panther is designed to smite medium armour amd require heavier AT assets. As stated the problem is medium tanks lack a place in the allied lineup UNLESS you are already winning by so much and want more pressure quickly (mediums are more fun than TDs).

    Allied infantry are being toned down slightly perhaps medium tanks will see more play (and thus the panther more of a role) but i still think that allied TDs will need a slight (SLIGHT) reduction in potency
  • #911
    2 years ago
    KiethSomataw99KiethSoma… Posts: 77
    edited December 2017

    I was a bit unhappy with cost of caches being increased to 250 manpower from 200. I had an idea of a change that makes it a middle approach and adds a little more strategy.

    The first cache (either munitions or fuel) costs 200 manpower for each player, subsequent caches cost 250 manpower. That cost of caches will rise to 250 the moment you order construction of one cache but will drop back to 200 manpower if cancelled. This encourages players to pick one territory point as a good point to secure supply lines and makes it a little harder for supplies to be cut off early game.

  • #912
    2 years ago
    For the rest of his lifeFor the r… Posts: 49
    edited December 2017

    (removed)

  • #913
    2 years ago
    mrgame2mrgame2 Posts: 496
    Welp the patch went ahead. Im outta here, relic learnt nothing from dow3 failure.

    Gutting the core of coh. Late game axis play is no more. Okw unique faction of survivability and strength gutted. Brit got good buff, pounder nest is good while pak43 still sucky.

    Expecting late game Jackson dominant.

    Will give coh3 a trial when it is free on humble bundle
  • #914
    2 years ago
    vsrvsr Posts: 93

    @DanielM36 said:

    Is the update release date already set?

    What is the size of the update?

  • #915
    2 years ago

    Well, let me address @mrgame2 real fast. Because he said to me, "make sense buddy!"

    I'm sorry if i confused you mrgame2, but that's only because a lot of this patch doesn't make sense. There's a few hotfixes that i can appreciate, but otherwise no.

    The nerfing of the okw base. The AA gun's, the Schwerer HQ gun change. Why was an already vulnerable building to a faction that doesn't get cashes, and usually builds out in the open, given yet, ANOTHER restriction?

    (Gun is disabled for 60 seconds afterwards) Seriously!?!? It feels like you're adding restrictions because you don't like them, not because it's needed. And i hate that you make it seem like a necessity, like if the cool-down is justified, just because adding restrictions seems like balance, but in this case it isn't. The fact that building has a weapon convey's to the player WHY it does, it's importance, it's not just a petty defensive structure, it's your BASE, your high tier building. The building doesn't have brace, it's never in a period where it's less or more vulnerable. The disablement is completely uncalled for. If the gun is shooting at aircraft, it CAN'T be shooting at ground forces, and vise-versa. But again, it's vulnerability never changes! With this update, its now a liability and pointless restriction! There's no guarantee it'll shoot down aircraft, there never was! What fairy-tale, cheap-shot, are you gonna do next..."Uh, after grenadiers fire a rifle grenade they must sit in the corner for sixty seconds and pray to relic gods asking for permission to re-enter the battle." BALANCE!

    I'm not seeing balance, I'm seeing oppression.

    "What can we pick on with the okw that we just a have personal gripe with?" "Well let's nerf as much as we can, and make it seem like it was a problem to begin with."

    Now look at the USF base, which is basically a fortified, impenetrable, BUNKER that is highly resistant to base rushes. Furthermore all of these structures are PRE-BUILT! You don't have to spend time telling RE's to go set up your building in a specific location, or spend the manpower to have construction units at all, and this faction can build cashes!

    But no, they don't think about that right? Where's the community apology there??? "Hey, we know that's a an issue for years we'll kindly look into that with this patch." No! The jad and elephant were the two they pick on. The flip-of-a-coin-units, that are already balanced, "let's pick on them even more for the slow players in 4v4's whos just sit and STARE at each other for 15min intervals." Or the USF AT gun which is still to potent. It's abilities were suppose to make it on par with other AT gun's now, now it's abilities are still just overkill.

    and i know i haven't been in this particular discussion but...

    Well, the Comet already matches the Panther in AT while being much better in all other areas. The Panther is not a generalist, no matter how much you may tell everyone it is

    Just that part....I just really, really, liked that last sentence.

    Well said @Noitatohtori

  • #916
    2 years ago
    SvanhSvanh Posts: 159
    edited December 2017

    @thedarkarmadillo said:
    @Svanh dominating tank combat as in the best tank at fighting tanks, not tank destroyers, not infantry, not team weapons. Tanks. Like t34s and cromwells and favourable returns against the comet. The PROBLEM with the comet (as you brought it up) was there was no unit it could not engage with premium effeciency. Infanty? Oops just got wiped in a single shell. AT guns? Good thing it could shoot WP out to 80 range and toss nades up close. Tank destroyers? High speeds (including almost always available and cost free blitz) incredible moving accuracy (you know the usf thing, but on brit tanks) and incredible range leaving 1 nondoc unit that outranged it out of both axis factions and tracking meant landing a hit could mean a follow up because of the combined range, speed and unit highlight. Tanks? Out gunned and outranged, more mobility too meant it was able to keep its tiger/pershing level armour facing them at all times. Games dragging on only meant more comets and less that could stop them. Even the panther would only win 3/5 times in a slugfest, and anything else was HEAVILY in favour of the comet. It eas a nondoc pershing that you could build non stop if you vould afford it.

    The panther is designed to smite medium armour amd require heavier AT assets. As stated the problem is medium tanks lack a place in the allied lineup UNLESS you are already winning by so much and want more pressure quickly (mediums are more fun than TDs).

    Allied infantry are being toned down slightly perhaps medium tanks will see more play (and thus the panther more of a role) but i still think that allied TDs will need a slight (SLIGHT) reduction in potency

    My apologies for misunderstanding what was meant by "dominating tank combat". I'm afraid I conflated that with the arguments about fighting Jacksons. :)

    That said, I disagree with your assertion that the Panther "is designed to smite medium armour". It does do quite well at this thanks to its armour and speed but an examination of its stats (penetration, range, reload time) and a look at other Ostheer and OKW vehicles would imply that its main role is to destroy heavy and super-heavy armour with its performance against medium armour being a happy side-effect rather than being by design.

    The relationship between the allies not using medium armour and the axis not using the Panther isn't causal. Stugs are a far more cost-effective counter to allied medium tanks than Panthers so we would expect to see more discussion of their relative uselessness given a lack of allied medium armour. We don't, because almost every allied tank destroyer is medium armour and Stugs can handle them relatively cost-effectively (although perhaps not the new Jackson). This implies that it isn't the lack of medium armour that hurts the Panther, it's the fact that the allies always build its hard-counter.

    The problem with the Panther is that it is effectively a super-heavy TD but it doesn't have the infantry back-up a Firefly or Jackson could rely on. There are two problems I can see here: the dominance of TDs and the usual allied/axis infantry imbalance. Fixing the latter has been discussed and will help with the lack of allied generalist or AI medium armour play.

    The former, on the other hand, hasn't been well discussed. I would argue that it's the inevitable result of combining high vehicle lethality with a small number of vehicles. To fix this, we would need to increase the penetration and reload time of all heavy TDs and the Panther. Whether this is desirable, I don't know. :)

  • #917
    2 years ago
    RiCERiCE Posts: 1,588
    edited December 2017

    @Katitof said:

    The panther WAS dominating tank combat.
    That's EXACTLY why its being brought down.

    You literally didn't need to use ANYTHING ELSE for AT 2v2 and above - it was the only axis armored unit to ever exist in late game, no stugs, no JP4s, no P4s, no ostwinds, just panther spam.

    Because of that uncontested domination it needed to be brought down and be contested by allied TDs, which it rolled over as well in equal numbers.

    That was because basically all other tanks are perfectly unreliable and / or cost inefficient against allied tanks.

    This is the most biased patch i have ever seen. Its like a confirmation from relic of it is time to uninstall this game once and for all.

    Enjoy it. Keep uploading replays where fighting obsolete OST P4 and Ostwinds against SU76, M36 etc... Must be fun to watch.

  • #918
    2 years ago
    KatitofKatitof Posts: 6,672

    @RiCE said:

    @Katitof said:

    The panther WAS dominating tank combat.
    That's EXACTLY why its being brought down.

    You literally didn't need to use ANYTHING ELSE for AT 2v2 and above - it was the only axis armored unit to ever exist in late game, no stugs, no JP4s, no P4s, no ostwinds, just panther spam.

    Because of that uncontested domination it needed to be brought down and be contested by allied TDs, which it rolled over as well in equal numbers.

    That was because basically all other tanks are perfectly unreliable and / or cost inefficient against allied tanks.

    This is the most biased patch i have ever seen. Its like a confirmation from relic of it is time to uninstall this game once and for all.

    Enjoy it. Keep uploading replays where fighting obsolete OST P4 and Ostwinds against SU76, M36 etc... Must be fun to watch.

    OKW P4 lacks nothing, its highest armor medium in game, Ost P4 just got plenty of buffs.
    StuGs were always great.
    JP4 was overshadowed by panther, not anymore.

    If you are short on memory about biased patches, let me remind you about march deployment, which made game completely one sided.

    All factions got buffs where they needed and plenty of nerfs, stop victimizing yourself already, you're not axis martyrs here. Did you even played DBP when it was in testing? I did plenty and it feels just fine.

    And if you want to keep posting replays of tank destroyers destroying tanks as a proof of these tanks being weak, you might want to reconsider how you play the game, because tanks are NOT the counter for tank destroyers-you have it in the name.

  • #919
    2 years ago
    ShukoShuko Posts: 4

    Was BAR/Bren bolbs fixed in this one? Until fundamental and broken stuff like this is fixed, or that many Axis units are only 4-men, it is really trivial to discuss about buffs and nerfs to Panther etc. This was announced as team play patch. 4v4 for Axis was already quite horrible, now it's even worse.

  • #920
    2 years ago
    KatitofKatitof Posts: 6,672

    @Shuko said:
    Was BAR/Bren bolbs fixed in this one? Until fundamental and broken stuff like this is fixed, or that many Axis units are only 4-men, it is really trivial to discuss about buffs and nerfs to Panther etc. This was announced as team play patch. 4v4 for Axis was already quite horrible, now it's even worse.

    Use HMGs, they no longer have smoke.

  • #921
    2 years ago
    SkysTheLimitSkysTheLi… Posts: 2,271
    edited December 2017

    @eonfigure said:
    The nerfing of the okw base. The AA gun's, the Schwerer HQ gun change. Why was an already vulnerable building to a faction that doesn't get cashes, and usually builds out in the open, given yet, ANOTHER restriction?

    What? You think the Flak HQ nerf was unfair out of all of the things that happened in this patch? First of all, what the hell does not having caches have to do with getting a free AA base? The "restriction" just makes it so that you actually have to micro a little if you want to fight Aircraft (like the other 4 factions have to) instead of brainlessly denying any and all air support.

    As for being "vulnerable", YOU choose where you put it. You don't need to use that thing to defend critical territory, but you can if you feel like going that route. But the fact that you picked that nerf to be upset about is mindboggling to me, it's literally just a change to make something less brainless.

    Anyone bringing up OKWs lack of caches needs to be ready to lose the KT from the stock lineup. Simple as that. You want a Heavy tank no matter what cmdr you pick? You don't get caches. That's it.

  • #922
    2 years ago

    @SkysTheLimit said:

    @eonfigure said:
    The nerfing of the okw base. The AA gun's, the Schwerer HQ gun change. Why was an already vulnerable building to a faction that doesn't get cashes, and usually builds out in the open, given yet, ANOTHER restriction?

    What? You think the Flak HQ nerf was unfair out of all of the things that happened in this patch? First of all, what the hell does not having caches have to do with getting a free AA base? The "restriction" just makes it so that you actually have to micro a little if you want to fight Aircraft (like the other 4 factions have to) instead of brainlessly denying any and all air support.

    As for being "vulnerable", YOU choose where you put it. You don't need to use that thing to defend critical territory, but you can if you feel like going that route. But the fact that you picked that nerf to be upset about is mindboggling to me, it's literally just a change to make something less brainless.

    Anyone bringing up OKWs lack of caches needs to be ready to lose the KT from the stock lineup. Simple as that. You want a Heavy tank no matter what cmdr you pick? You don't get caches. That's it.

    I'm not really bothered personally about Schwerer not being able to attack both air and ground simultaneously, as I feel it could never be trusted to function as proper Anti-Air. However, I do understand those who feel the change was unneeded, as it's basically the same as removing AA from Bofors, with the exception that it's also your endgame unit building. The whole point of OKW trucks and bases that can set-up anywhere is kinda moot already, so I think it'd be better to just remove the flak gun and give it a reduction in cost. Same treatment for Battlegroup and Mechanized, reduce the cost, remove medics and repair.

  • #923
    2 years ago
    KatitofKatitof Posts: 6,672

    @Noitatohtori said:
    I'm not really bothered personally about Schwerer not being able to attack both air and ground simultaneously, as I feel it could never be trusted to function as proper Anti-Air. However, I do understand those who feel the change was unneeded, as it's basically the same as removing AA from Bofors, with the exception that it's also your endgame unit building.

    Its not even close.
    Bofors is a exclusive side tech and pop eating unit.

    Schwere is a tech structure.
    Which other faction has a tech structure that gives you additional and powerful benefit just for being there?

    The whole point of OKW trucks and bases that can set-up anywhere is kinda moot already, so I think it'd be better to just remove the flak gun and give it a reduction in cost. Same treatment for Battlegroup and Mechanized, reduce the cost, remove medics and repair.

    On the contrary, its still viable, however only now it actually does have a downside to it instead of all benefits.
    And because you apparently haven't played the game for more then a year, battlegroup and mechanized had medics and repair pios removed and made into side upgrade long time ago.

    OKW still have cheapest and most beneficial tech out of all factions.

  • #924
    2 years ago

    @Noitatohtori said:
    However, I do understand those who feel the change was unneeded, as it's basically the same as removing AA from Bofors, with the exception that it's also your endgame unit building.

    No, it is nothing like removing the AA from the Bofors. The Bofors isn't a free bonus building you get with tech, its something you choose to build specifically. Not to mention the fact that AA isn't getting removed in the first place, its being made to require micro, and that is where I am lost as to how someone can be at odds with the change. It is simply making the player use a bit more brainpower to get the same results.

  • #925
    2 years ago
    HingieHingie Posts: 2,006
    edited December 2017
    OK-W having the most beneficial tech? Don't make me laugh. The USF gets free - FREE -Squads with tech including a fully functional mobile FRP. I'd say that handily beats two trucks who have additional costs added to unlock perks and a now gutted Flak.
    And you guys defending the Bofors is also unbelievable. For the cost of a light vehicle you can plonk down a 1000 HP Doomfortress which will, on its own, lock down an entire part of the map till tanks arrive. I'm very sure that's totally balanced.
  • #926
    2 years ago
    SkysTheLimitSkysTheLi… Posts: 2,271
    edited December 2017

    @Hingie said:
    And you guys defending the Bofors is also unbelievable. For the cost of a light vehicle you can plonk down a 1000 HP Doomfortress which will, on its own, lock down an entire part of the map till tanks arrive. I'm very sure that's totally balanced.

    Huh, here I was thinking artillery was a thing. Wasn't even defending the Bofors by the way, all I literally said was that the current nerf to the Flak HQ is not the same as taking AA away from it. That's it. Pick fights with Katitof all you want, do not put words in my mouth, I can't stand the Brits either. But I hate OKW far more.

    And US teching is better than OKW? Seriously? The officers are just weaker rifle squads (except the Major who is the only real valuable one), and that "mobile" retreat point is far more a curse than a blessing, it is the easiest of all 3 FRPs to dislodge. It also came WAY later than OKWs FRP pre-patch, and let's not forget the snares, nades, and weapon upgrades that all get included in OKW teching.

  • #927
    2 years ago
    ElliotAldersonElliotAld… Posts: 6
    edited December 2017
    "Anyone bringing up OKWs lack of caches needs to be ready to lose the KT from the stock lineup. Simple as that. You want a Heavy tank no matter what cmdr you pick? You don't get caches. That's it."

    Sign me up! Not having caches is a huge disadvantage. Always has been.
  • #928
    2 years ago
    HingieHingie Posts: 2,006
    edited December 2017
    Right. You mean mortars, I take it. Perhaps a LeiG. Even if the enemy doesn't do diddly to defend it, it takes quite some time to whittle it down, especially since there is a magic deflector shield installed in ever Brit Emplacement. Not to mention the Bofors can fire back at the Mortar... but never mind. Sure. Mortars counter the Bofors. The same way a single at gun counters a Brummbär.

    But you are right. Fuck OK-W. If it wasn't for those Bastards, Wehr wouldn't be in such a sorry state.
  • #929
    2 years ago

    @SkysTheLimit said:

    @Hingie said:
    And you guys defending the Bofors is also unbelievable. For the cost of a light vehicle you can plonk down a 1000 HP Doomfortress which will, on its own, lock down an entire part of the map till tanks arrive. I'm very sure that's totally balanced.

    Huh, here I was thinking artillery was a thing. Wasn't even defending the Bofors by the way, all I literally said was that the current nerf to the Flak HQ is not the same as taking AA away from it. That's it. Pick fights with Katitof all you want, do not put words in my mouth, I can't stand the Brits either. But I hate OKW far more.

    And US teching is better than OKW? Seriously? The officers are just weaker rifle squads (except the Major who is the only real valuable one), and that "mobile" retreat point is far more a curse than a blessing, it is the easiest of all 3 FRPs to dislodge. It also came WAY later than OKWs FRP pre-patch, and let's not forget the snares, nades, and weapon upgrades that all get included in OKW teching.

    I disagree with you completely on the Major. If Battlegroup or a Forward Assembly gets flares but under it, it's going to take a beating. Major? Just move your stuff away and continue, business as usual. It can relocate, escape, advance with pushes and scout with abilities. Major is AMAZING.

  • #930
    2 years ago

    @Hingie said:
    Not to mention the Bofors can fire back at the Mortar... but never mind. Sure. Mortars counter the Bofors. The same way a single at gun counters a Brummbär.

    It CAN fire back at the mortars, except it has WAY more scatter for shooting at a smaller target. Meanwhile if you call a barrage on the center of the Bofors you'll have a hard time missing. And, If you target the mortars with a suppressive barrage, anything and everything can walk right up to it. Sound familiar? It's the exact same mechanic that was just introduced to the Flak HQ for shooting down airplanes.

    I find mortar pits far more troublesome than Bofors to be honest. I've never struggled to destroy a Bofors UNLESS there was a nearby mortar pit. But even mortar pits on their own can be far more difficult to get rid when well defended/placed.

  • #931
    2 years ago

    @Noitatohtori said:
    I disagree with you completely on the Major. If Battlegroup or a Forward Assembly gets flares but under it, it's going to take a beating.

    Okay but the thing is, the Battlegroup FRP (until just yesterday) required nothing but OKWs cheapest tier to setup. You could have that FRP setup LONG before anyone has enough artillery to actually give it a beating, whereas the US FRP requires the final tech.

    @Noitatohtori said:
    Major? Just move your stuff away and continue, business as usual. It can relocate, escape, advance with pushes and scout with abilities.

    And it requires the Major and Ambulance, both of which take up popcap, meanwhile the BG is just a structure. You can literally roll up your tank for a split-second, fire 1 shot to knock out the ambulance, and peace out. Or of course a single howitzer shell will do the trick as well. The USF FRP has obvious and clear ways to go about pushing it off, whereas removing OKWs requires you to simply outnumber them in everyway long enough to focus it down.

    Delaying OKWs FRP is by far the most welcome change in the patch for me, and I am only sad that they did not see fit to remove them entirely from all 3 factions who get them.

This discussion has been closed.

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

  • © SEGA. SEGA, the SEGA logo, Relic Entertainment, the Relic Entertainment logo, Company of Heroes and the Company of Heroes logo are either trademarks or registered trademarks of SEGA Holdings Co., Ltd. or its affiliates. All rights reserved. SEGA is registered in the US Patent and Trademark Office. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners.