OKW - New Commander Mod Official Discussion

13

Comments

  • #62
    5 months ago
    pfcpfc Posts: 8

    Tiger
    -Now requires all trucks converted to be called-in; same as the King Tiger.

    =totally dumped trash

  • #63
    5 months ago
    Mr_RuinMr_Ruin Posts: 92

    Locking Tiger I behind all buildings is a strange choice.

    I can get locking it behind Schwerer Panzer HQ so you don't spam light vehicles and then jump to a Tiger (although if Soviets can do it why can't OKW?), but locking it behind all buildings just makes it redundant. If I have fuel for all that I will rather go for a Tiger II. And if I don't have that much fuel I will rather go for a Panther and 2 buildings instead of 3.

    So Tiger I ends up being rarely used novelty ...

  • #64
    5 months ago
    thedarkarmadillothedarkar… Posts: 5,821
    Idk. Tiger Iand tiger II are quite different units. Tiger II is heavier in every way, including mobility which ends up being its down fall. The tiger I on the other hand is still formidable but also more mobile and cheaper too isn't it? You can wait for the heavier harder tiger or incorporate a cheaper faster tiger.

    Only thing, if it isn't already the tiger I will need to be 0cp so it isn't a wait if they manage to tech.
  • #65
    5 months ago
    Mr_RuinMr_Ruin Posts: 92

    @thedarkarmadillo said:
    Idk. Tiger Iand tiger II are quite different units. Tiger II is heavier in every way, including mobility which ends up being its down fall. The tiger I on the other hand is still formidable but also more mobile and cheaper too isn't it? You can wait for the heavier harder tiger or incorporate a cheaper faster tiger.

    Only thing, if it isn't already the tiger I will need to be 0cp so it isn't a wait if they manage to tech.

    Yeah, mobility wise they are somewhat different but if I really want a heavy tank I will rather take the heavier variant (difference in cost ain't that big) and if I want mobility I will rather go for 2 medium tanks (and taking into account the building tax that will cost me around the same).

    There are some situations where taking Tiger I could be better - like some big maps where it could get faster out of sticky situations than it's bigger counterpart and/or support a Panther with it's relative speed and anti-all 88mm if there are tons of fuel.

    But when everything is said and done it is still a heavy tank so it will fight for it's position with Tiger II. JagdTiger and SturmTiger at least fill a different role from Tiger II...

  • #66
    5 months ago
    Mr_RuinMr_Ruin Posts: 92

    Actually, when I think about it, every other army can call in commander units without restrictions. Some units have been changed in a way that they need to be built but heavy call-ins are still just call-ins needing nothing more than to have resources and call it in.
    IS2, ISU, KV2, Pershing, Crocodile, OstTiger, Elephant, Jagdtiger ... all of them just need you to point and click.

    Only other unit which is hidden behind buildings is Tiger II and that has a reason. And that reason is that it is a free 6th commander power. You get it no matter which commander you use. So you pay for that free power with buildings. And that is ok.

    But now with Tiger I you pay extra for something you already got by choosing a commander. And if that is the way to go why stop with OKW? Either put such restrictions on all heavy call-ins or on none.

  • #67
    5 months ago
    thedarkarmadillothedarkar… Posts: 5,821
    All heavies should be tied to tech. They made a step towards that but got cold feet.
  • #68
    5 months ago
    Mr_RuinMr_Ruin Posts: 92

    @thedarkarmadillo said:
    All heavies should be tied to tech. They made a step towards that but got cold feet.

    As I said, either they should put all restrictions simultaneously or none. That is only fair thing to do.

  • #69
    5 months ago
    PanzerFutzPanzerFutz Melbourne, OzPosts: 346

    It's probably too late to make the sort of all-encompassing changes being suggested. They should stick to just fixing these commanders.

    If they're going to include Panzer Commander in this doctrine, then they should just make the Tiger a regular call-in unit. No special abilities - just a standard Tiger, exactly like the one the Wehrmacht has.

    It's best to stick with established practice at this point. Trying to get too creative just opens up a big can of worms. Every faction has call-in heavy tanks so, there's no point in relegating the Tiger to irrelevance by tying it to a total tech state.

  • #70
    5 months ago
    YanggesaisiYanggesai… Posts: 32

    Dear developer,
    @Andy_RE

    I believe what @Mr_Ruin has mentioned already makes a very clear and strong statement in his perspective, so I will not overstress his thoughts here.

    @Mr_Ruin said:
    Actually, when I think about it, every other army can call in commander units without restrictions. Some units have been changed in a way that they need to be built but heavy call-ins are still just call-ins needing nothing more than to have resources and call it in.
    IS2, ISU, KV2, Pershing, Crocodile, OstTiger, Elephant, Jagdtiger ... all of them just need you to point and click.

    Only other unit which is hidden behind buildings is Tiger II and that has a reason. And that reason is that it is a free 6th commander power. You get it no matter which commander you use. So you pay for that free power with buildings. And that is ok.

    But now with Tiger I you pay extra for something you already got by choosing a commander. And if that is the way to go why stop with OKW? Either put such restrictions on all heavy call-ins or on none.

    Accordingly, I would like to provide some of my thoughts and support them with some stats evidence under my knowledge. Ahead speaking, I do believe that one unit which came from a doctrine, is supposed to be buffed while comparing to common units from bases.

    Imagine that when the war was tied up, no one makes a further step forward, or the moral was waning, thus making the prospects of this battle even more remote, isn't that a good time to ask for support from the Headquarters and call in an champion unit or a marvelous-skilled commanding officer from other forces to save the world? Isn't the doctrine and commander that we have to choose in each match, are designed to offer players with such kind of fantasy feelings and wonderful experiences? Or the commander is only designed to balance the game and degenerate into mediocrity? It is the purpose that determines our behavior as well as the direction to advance, especially the moment of making critical decisions.

    We game players, though luckily got the respects for participating into the balancing and developing process, can not easily answer such initial and critical questions which determines the game path in the following days and years. In this way, unless some honorable gentlemen could inspired me with an official answer in the forum, or I have to suppose that doctrine is meant to be at least a little bit stronger than the common units in bases.

    Thus, when it comes to the New Commander Patch 3.0 of OKW Commander Tiger unit, I have to make a comparison among similar role-definition heavy tanks (data comes from the forum and coh2db.com).

    IS-2 Heavy Tank. (Call- in unit)

    Costs 640 MP, 230 Fuel, with generally Damage 160, Speed: 5 Accel: 1.7 Rotate: 32 Armor: 375/140 Health: 1040

    TigerAusf. B “Königstiger”, or we call it King Tiger

    Costs 720 MP and 280 Fuel, with generally Damage 240, Speed: 3.8 Accel: 1.4 Rotate: 25 Armor: 375/150 Health: 1280
    AND
    Tech cost (which is also a timing issue):
    200 MP+25 Fuel, 200 MP + 45 Fuel, and 200 MP 120 Fuel, along with 3* (150 MP +15 Fuel ) for SWS Supply Halftracks.

    If the IS-2 with less cost and better flexibility could be balanced equal (personally thinking) to the differences among damage, health and more cost of King Tiger, the no tech-locked requirement has to be the privilege and feature of the Doctrine and Commander.

    Then what about the New Commander Patch 3.0 of OKW Commander Tiger unit? Although I have not got any detailed stats of this unit, simply making analogy from similar units may provide us a clue -- this Commander Tiger has to be "INCREDIBLY STRONG" or "EXTREMELY CHEAP in COST", because it has combines both doctrine and tech limitations.

    Then it comes to the current situation...... Is the OKW Commander Tiger strong enough with current stats and veteran? How much possibility is the Command Tiger's "distinctive and appealing ability" be able to trigger in the future solo or multiple players games? Is that really worthy to call in such an unit like this? How long could the game lasts for the appearance and play a practical role in 1v1 matches and how long could the incredibly strong Commander Tiger survives and gain Vet4 and 5 in 4v4 matches ?

    I do believe these issues mentioned above will definitely determines whether the new doctrine is worthy and attractive for use to most current or potential COH2 game players who loyal to OKW faction.

    Anyhow, It has been such a wonderful journey that we have experienced in the past ten years. What we players are expecting now is, honestly speaking, to move forward with you all and with each other farther and make this classic game be even more prosper.

    Thanks for your attention!

  • #71
    5 months ago
    PrincessBubblegumPrincessB… Posts: 110

    @Mr_Ruin написал:
    I think Grand Offensives is a bit too powerful cause it just circumvents most OKW problems.

    • Your oponent is using early light vehicles, no problem. Panzerfusiliers have AT grenade from the start.
    • Your oponent is using suppression, no problem. You get smoke on Volksgrenadiers or Smoke recon.
    • Afraid your raketten will get circumvented? Just buy 2 Schrecks on Panzerfusieliers. Or go crazy and just spam Schrecks.
    • Want to spam light vehicles for most of the match or lost your SWS for tank production? Just take Tiger I,it is cheaper than dishing out 140 fuel for new SWS.

    I mean, it is a blast to play with this commander, but I don't think the oponent will agree it was a fun match.

    Actually, all doctrines for all factions are "circumventing" most their weaknesses, especially those new.
    Just play soviet airborne against real wehrmacht player and you will see, who is really "having fun".

  • #72
    5 months ago
    Patrol_OmegaPatrol_Om… Posts: 297

    Requesting all HQs to be built in order to call in a very powerful heavy tank is something that should have been implemented a long time ago, but it sure is a step on balancing things out for all factions.
    As the game currently is, it is totally frustrating to see a Heavy Tank call in after destroying the OKW T4 HQ with a lot of units sacrificed on the process, like if nothing ever happened.

  • #73
    5 months ago
    harahara Posts: 4

    @Patrol_Omega I dont agree with you, you are talking like Allies have an issue with destroying okw T4 building, when it is not the case, every single game you can see that same building being destroyed without a problem, and its not a cheap building, so okw player should invest in building while you are spamming tanks, nice thinking there.

    If okw player built an t4 hq and allies destroyed it, okw players should indeed still have an ability to call in heavy tanks and by heavy tanks I mean king tiger and now new included tiger, they are not cheap, but they should help. Even though you have a heavy tank like King Tiger, and btw he is very slow and killable, jacksons outrange him easily, they are still not tanks that can solo win games, if they win a game you are doing something wrong.

    I dont see a problem. Stop creating problems when there is none. Just tell me how is okw supposed to fight tanks if they lock all the tanks behind a single building and you dont have T4-hq on field? Raketens? Panzerfusilires? Panzerfausts maybe? Stop joking pls.

  • #74
    5 months ago
    Patrol_OmegaPatrol_Om… Posts: 297

    @hara the big difference in dropouts from games comes from Allies players that simply RQ after they get their initial forces beaten just to see a T4-HQ settled around 8 minutes into the game next to a Fuel or VP capture zone.
    Why are you even trying to deny the free wins? For some players is very stressful to have a teammate that RQ before 10 minutes into the game.
    Increasing the gameplay difficulty for the second easiest faction on the game according to many streamers is something that should have been implemented a long time ago, but it is great that it is finally been looked at. The Wehrmacht been the easiest one in case that you want to debate that as well.
    Setting a reasonable condition for the heavy tank call in is very well appreciated.
    And in case you haven't noticed it yet, this will encourage new strategies from OKW players, as they will need to build all of their HQs. Double win for Relic Mod Team.

  • #75
    5 months ago
    harahara Posts: 4
    edited April 10

    @Patrol_Omega yes dropouts from games because some cheese strats didnt work and not because some okw T4 building is built around fuel point, you are telling like you can build it in a 10min mark...

    Fight for fuel was always on and thank God both sides can protect it with some sort of buildings and defenses.
    By building a t4 on fuel point as much as it helps it makes you open to losing it also, btw there is two fuel points on every map and the way you are saying it, it sounds like you are greedy in games and need to hold two fuel points against axis, usually brits also lock down fuel points and stars with the bofors and nobody complains about being able to have such a small investment early into the game to just lock down a point.

    You still did not answer my question... if okw player loses t4, how is he suppose to fight while you are spamming tanks and arty, and while he is re-building t4 building, investing more fuel and wasting time while you roam the map with tanks.
    What new strats from okw players? Building pumas and luchs against jacksons and churchills maybe... lol

    Well if they do this then why not adding brace to T4-hq, that way it would be kinda balanced wouldn't it be? I think not.

  • #76
    5 months ago
    Mr_RuinMr_Ruin Posts: 92

    OKW T4 building is a big target and doesn't have that much health nor range. It can be taken down by mortars, arty, off-map arty, long range AT, even a concentrated armor push in quite a fast time. And if oponent sees you building it he needs only a coule shots to destroy it before it is even built. Therefore placing it too far from your base is a death sentence more times than it isn't. I actually like when oponent puts it on a fuel. That means he will have to fight fanatically to defend it and repair it if he wants to bring in tanks. Especially cause it costs as much as a tank. (300 manpower and 140 fuel all in all if I am not mistaken).

    Therefore one of my favourite strategies against it is using mortars on it cause you get to kill Sturpioneers which are repairing it as well and you will in most cases annoy OKW player enough that he starts making mistakes. And when I play with OKW I always think hard will I put it inside my base or on a cut-off cause every player worth his salt has a way to kill it cheaply and easily.

    If it was cheaper to rebuild maybe it would be a different story but that is not the case.

  • #77
    5 months ago
    Patrol_OmegaPatrol_Om… Posts: 297

    @hara I like how you try to tell half-truths, so here are my replies:

    That T4HQ was built in 9 minutes and it made my teammate rage quit, I then realized what was going on, so I decided to take a screenshot from it. So what were you saying about it being impossible to build a T4HQ under 10 minutes mark?
    I would like to suggest you practice more on this "tactic" buddy. The fact that you can't do something, it doesn't mean that other players can't as well, so I suggest you to stop using false statements to prove your point.

    Answering your question:

    • OKW has the best AT infantry from the game, referring to Panzerschrecks
    • Panzerfaust deals critical damage after one single shot, leaving the enemy light and medium tanks extremely weak.
    • Raketenwerfer 43 Anti-Tank Rocket Launcher is by far the best AT gun on the game, has integrated cammo, retreat and great damage against Allied tanks. Remember that Ally tanks have less armor and fewer chances of bouncing AT damage, so all inc damages does it job.
    • The chances for Axis factions to accomplish a comeback and win the game are higher than the Allies for some of those reasons. This is why Allies tend to just surrender in contrast to Axis players percentage.

    Now getting back to my point, if you lose your T4HQ or any other HQ is because you play very aggressive trying to capitalize territory with them, which involves a "high risk, high reward" variable. So yes! I like playing aggressive as well and penalize OKW players for doing so, by trying to destroy their HQs.

  • #78
    5 months ago
    Patrol_OmegaPatrol_Om… Posts: 297

    @Mr_Ruin I disagree with the Schwerer Panzer Headquarters (Tier 4) not having much health nor range as you stated because the range is already huge and covers an entire territory. Then the fact that it is a HQ means that it comes with the standard values for a HQ hp.

    These arguments have derailed so bad from the main topic, but in any case the Version 3.0 made great improvements on this matter.

  • #79
    5 months ago
    WAAAGH2000WAAAGH2000 Posts: 72

    If balance team think OKW tiger too early.....replace by reworked tiger ace

  • #80
    5 months ago
    harahara Posts: 4
    edited April 11

    @Patrol_Omega said:
    @hara I like how you try to tell half-truths, so here are my replies:

    That T4HQ was built in 9 minutes and it made my teammate rage quit, I then realized what was going on, so I decided to take a screenshot from it. So what were you saying about it being impossible to build a T4HQ under 10 minutes mark?
    I would like to suggest you practice more on this "tactic" buddy. The fact that you can't do something, it doesn't mean that other players can't as well, so I suggest you to stop using false statements to prove your point.

    Answering your question:

    • OKW has the best AT infantry from the game, referring to Panzerschrecks
    • Panzerfaust deals critical damage after one single shot, leaving the enemy light and medium tanks extremely weak.
    • Raketenwerfer 43 Anti-Tank Rocket Launcher is by far the best AT gun on the game, has integrated cammo, retreat and great damage against Allied tanks. Remember that Ally tanks have less armor and fewer chances of bouncing AT damage, so all inc damages does it job.
    • The chances for Axis factions to accomplish a comeback and win the game are higher than the Allies for some of those reasons. This is why Allies tend to just surrender in contrast to Axis players percentage.

    Now getting back to my point, if you lose your T4HQ or any other HQ is because you play very aggressive trying to capitalize territory with them, which involves a "high risk, high reward" variable. So yes! I like playing aggressive as well and penalize OKW players for doing so, by trying to destroy their HQs.

    First of all I am not your "buddy", second look at your map man, you should indeed be punished for controlling maybe 25% of the map, and you have posted a picture that presents an extreme situation where you and your "buddy" did very poorly, so dont try put some arguments with something that is not presenting majority of games.

    Of course we can da a tactic like this with 10min mark t4-hq to players like you, it seems you are a bad when it comes to losing, the fact that you blame t4-hq says it all.

    I have seen games where bofors did the same thing, I did it myself against some players, but its just lack of skill I would say. Not knowing how to deal with the situations like that, and not having patience.

    I would like to see you chasing tanks with shrecks at infantry and raketens while avoiding nades and arty :cold_sweat:
    Fausts cost ammo, and are locked behind building, ammo is also crucial point to capture you know? you contest the ammo = less fausts
    Satchels are homing and deal even more dmg to tanks then fausts, why dont they nerf satchels?
    Raketen is 4man squad while zis is a 5man squad, zis can be an arty piece also that can one shot squads, why dont they nerf zis?
    You are sounding just like that, everything that doesnt feels right to you is bad, even though is in good place.
    Reading it from the context, I am sure here somewhere on the forums you already posted how Axis at infantry is op and need nerfs.

    Man wtf you talking about, yeah allies have less armor, but thats how it was, you cant expect jacksons to have same armor like panters maybe, but they have better range and they dont bounce very often, jagdtigers and elephants are very slow, easy to flank, very expensive again, not cost effective if you outplay them. By the time one of heavy tanks come out allied player should have at least 3 jacksons if we are talking USF.

    Indeed you should try to penalize okw players if they try to capitalize early points or they try to setup a realy close t4 to your base, but the picture you have posted does not represent a t4-hq on a fuel point either close to your base!
    If you end up with a situation like that you did something very wrong that game, and you were punished.

    You see its ok when YOU penalize okw players but when YOU GET penalized than its not okay. You should know how to lose.

  • #81
    5 months ago
    Patrol_OmegaPatrol_Om… Posts: 297

    Do I really have to explain the whole game to you? @hara

    Like playing for a little bit longer after your matchmaking teammate rq just to then realized what was the tip of the Iceberg that made him leave. You obviously get pushed back to base after playing 1v2 plus one AI on easy difficulty. You really love denying very well known facts.

    Agree with not having the patience to deal with that kind of problems as nonsense.

    Here we go again .. Penals have to be almost 1mt away from the enemy tank to stick a satchel and guess what buddy! It does consumes ammo as well (why do you even waste an argument on that), isn't that more difficult than being like 20 mts away and firing your Panzerschreck?, which btw deals big amounts of damage.

    I knew you will totally fall for the "but that picture does not represent it being built next to a fuel depot" :D
    so I ask you: Would you build your T4HQ next to your fuel point or the Ammo depot portraited on the previous image?

    Take your time to analyze the game.

    "You should know how to lose."

    EXACTLY! You should know that if you go for a high risk-high reward strategy there will be risks involve! This is a war game after all.

  • #82
    5 months ago
    Mr_RuinMr_Ruin Posts: 92

    @Patrol_Omega said:
    @hara I like how you try to tell half-truths, so here are my replies:

    That T4HQ was built in 9 minutes and it made my teammate rage quit, I then realized what was going on, so I decided to take a screenshot from it. So what were you saying about it being impossible to build a T4HQ under 10 minutes mark?
    I would like to suggest you practice more on this "tactic" buddy. The fact that you can't do something, it doesn't mean that other players can't as well, so I suggest you to stop using false statements to prove your point.

    Answering your question:

    • OKW has the best AT infantry from the game, referring to Panzerschrecks
    • Panzerfaust deals critical damage after one single shot, leaving the enemy light and medium tanks extremely weak.
    • Raketenwerfer 43 Anti-Tank Rocket Launcher is by far the best AT gun on the game, has integrated cammo, retreat and great damage against Allied tanks. Remember that Ally tanks have less armor and fewer chances of bouncing AT damage, so all inc damages does it job.
    • The chances for Axis factions to accomplish a comeback and win the game are higher than the Allies for some of those reasons. This is why Allies tend to just surrender in contrast to Axis players percentage.

    Now getting back to my point, if you lose your T4HQ or any other HQ is because you play very aggressive trying to capitalize territory with them, which involves a "high risk, high reward" variable. So yes! I like playing aggressive as well and penalize OKW players for doing so, by trying to destroy their HQs.

    This truly went away from commander theme but ok. First thing I can see on that picture is that you can buy 120mm mortar. Buy it. Position it out of T4 range and protect it. Shoot for a minute. Congrats, you killed OKW T4 and cost them 300/140. Which means he needs to rebuild it to stay afloat or build a heavy tank after building other tech structures. Both means several minutes without a proper tank. Use that time to squeeze him with a cheap tank or two (like T34) and build SU-85 for inevitable Tiger (I or II). Surround the big cat when it arrives. Congrats on your victory.

    Secondly Panzershrecks for OKW come on an expensive unit you shouldn't spam if on Sturmpioneers and on a squishy unit with poor anti infantry if you buy them for Panzerfusiliers. PTRS come on Russian terminators (guards and penals) which can be spammed. That way they are balanced.
    Raketen has smaller range than other AT guns, doesn't give extra survivability cause it doesn't have a shield and has only 4 men but is a bit cheaper and more mobile. In other words, balanced.
    Also Allies losing a tank is waaaay different from Axis losing a tank. You lost a Sherman? Build another one. You lost a Panther, yeah you are screwed for at least 5 minutes while trying to get enough resources to build another one. But losing a Sherman is easier. Therefore balanced. (Although you could also instead of Shermans just spam Jacksons and double BAR riflemen).

    But ok, asymmetric balancing is a tough thing to grasp.

  • #83
    5 months ago
    Patrol_OmegaPatrol_Om… Posts: 297

    Allied infantry > Axis
    Axis tanks > Allied tanks
    So if Allies lose the early game they are basically screwed.

    Agree there is no further point on derailing the purpose of this post. I will just take a break.

  • #84
    5 months ago
    freejones12freejones… Posts: 55
    edited April 12

    I like the change of locking the Tiger I only behind the schwerer HQ. Its a good change that means you don't have to commit it as an endgame only unit.

  • #85
    5 months ago
    YanggesaisiYanggesai… Posts: 32
    edited April 14

    @Patrol_Omega said:
    @hara I like how you try to tell half-truths, so here are my replies:

    That T4HQ was built in 9 minutes and it made my teammate rage quit, I then realized what was going on, so I decided to take a screenshot from it. So what were you saying about it being impossible to build a T4HQ under 10 minutes mark?
    I would like to suggest you practice more on this "tactic" buddy. The fact that you can't do something, it doesn't mean that other players can't as well, so I suggest you to stop using false statements to prove your point.

    Answering your question:

    • OKW has the best AT infantry from the game, referring to Panzerschrecks
    • Panzerfaust deals critical damage after one single shot, leaving the enemy light and medium tanks extremely weak.
    • Raketenwerfer 43 Anti-Tank Rocket Launcher is by far the best AT gun on the game, has integrated cammo, retreat and great damage against Allied tanks. Remember that Ally tanks have less armor and fewer chances of bouncing AT damage, so all inc damages does it job.
    • The chances for Axis factions to accomplish a comeback and win the game are higher than the Allies for some of those reasons. This is why Allies tend to just surrender in contrast to Axis players percentage.

    Now getting back to my point, if you lose your T4HQ or any other HQ is because you play very aggressive trying to capitalize territory with them, which involves a "high risk, high reward" variable. So yes! I like playing aggressive as well and penalize OKW players for doing so, by trying to destroy their HQs.

    Why do you post a picture of your failure in twenty mins.....? (or ten mins? Sorry I can't see it very clearly) But, in any way, will that make any sense.....? If you lost all VPs and two fuels and most of territories within such a short time, then please check if there is something wrong with you or you teammate, or even both of you sir. If you want to state something, at least with a powerful evidence to prove it, not just "something" you thought that it fitful for your conclusion, it won't work.

    Even what you post was telling us something, a single case still could not make any sense. Relic has held so many championship competitions, could you please check the frequency that a top ten player who played OKW, set his T4 at a front line like what you mentioned and post?

    Speaking is your right and choice, but you may want to speak more wisely or no one will believe your sayings right?

    Thanks for your opinion though.

  • #86
    5 months ago
    PanzerFutzPanzerFutz Melbourne, OzPosts: 346

    @hara @Patrol_Omega @Mr_Ruin @Yanggesaisi The mods should have said this long ago:

    This is not the appropriate thread for a discussion about OKW tactics and how to counter them.

    Start a thread in the General Discussion section and have at it there. This thread is for discussions about the new OKW commander - as is clearly stated at the start.

  • #87
    5 months ago
    pfcpfc Posts: 8

    Tiger behind Schwerer Panzer HQ is still bad and If HQ is destroyed Tiger can't be call in
    This is completely backward compatibility of Soviet IS-2
    Delete lock and back to 13CP or only requires any 2 trucks

  • #88
    5 months ago

    I like the new 5.0 changes. Good to see a generally less useful ability be replaced by a better one. Also really happy to see panzerfusiliers get a new ability, even if it requires vet 5. Glad to see some of the more weaker units get some other buffs too.

  • #89
    5 months ago
    Sander93Sander93 Posts: 49

    @pfc said:
    Tiger behind Schwerer Panzer HQ is still bad and If HQ is destroyed Tiger can't be call in
    This is completely backward compatibility of Soviet IS-2
    Delete lock and back to 13CP or only requires any 2 trucks

    It is very likely that all heavy call-in tanks will receive the same treatment in the near future.
    Consider the OKW Tiger as a prototype.

  • #90
    5 months ago

    Since IR STG-44 have reintroduced to the doctrine, I would like put forward an idea to rework the Ability into a call-in unit the "Sturmschutzen"

    Sturmschutzen

    Visual note: reuse Obersoldaten models and voice lines

    CP: 3
    Cost: 340 MP
    Base stats: similar to OST Panzergrenadiers
    Armament: X4 Stg-44
    upgrade: X2 IR STG-44
    Abilities: model 24 grenade and smoke grenade

    Unit Role: medium range urban combat specialists

    veterancy

    Vet1: Urban combat training (-10% weapon cool down and -10% weapon reload time), -16% received accuracy

    Vet2: -25% weapon cool down, -16% received accuracy

    Vet3: +40% accuracy, +25% grenade range

    Vet4: -13% received accuracy,

    Vet5: passive healing

  • #91
    5 months ago
    pfcpfc Posts: 8
    > @Sander93 said:
    > @pfc said:
    > Tiger behind Schwerer Panzer HQ is still bad and If HQ is destroyed Tiger can't be call in
    > This is completely backward compatibility of Soviet IS-2
    > Delete lock and back to 13CP or only requires any 2 trucks
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > It is very likely that all heavy call-in tanks will receive the same treatment in the near future.
    > Consider the OKW Tiger as a prototype.

    Yeah near future not now
    There is no reason OKW Tiger should be first example
    If they gonna patch heavy call-ins It should be patch at the same time
Sign In or Register to comment.

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.