OKW still need caches.

2»

Comments

  • #32
    1 month ago
    BloodygoodBloodygood Posts: 73

    @szolnok95 said:
    Try to be agressive when OKW get 20 fuel per min, alllies: 40. And allies ez wipe the raketen...

    You can very easily be agressive with raketen because they are cheap, spammable, and camoflaugeable. If you don't enjoy ambushing a rushed comet with several raks and perhaps a a couple shrek pios, maybe a cheap, stealthy and scaleable puma, and taking away their supposed fuel advantage in the blink of an eye, you are playing the wrong faction

  • #33
    1 month ago
    thedarkarmadillothedarkar… Posts: 5,806
    > @szolnok95 said:
    > Try to be agressive when OKW get 20 fuel per min, alllies: 40. And allies ez wipe the raketen...

    What for the love of God are you doing with hundreds of manpower advantage the enemy is giving you by spamming caches? It's not something free you know. Okw can deny the enemy caches simply by aggression. If the enemy is bleeding they are not saving MP.
  • #34
    1 month ago
    Balanced_GamerBalanced_… Posts: 186

    I find it rather odd and unfair for OKW specifically not to have any caches considering every other factions has it.

    Even then the odds are very uneven. While there is 2 Axis factions which only 1 can build caches in contrast to 3 Allied factions all 3 can build caches.

    It would make more sense if allies had a faction or 2 also not being able to produce caches.

    Now it is like 3/3 Allies and 1/2 Axis can build caches. That is very unbalanced in my opinion and should be changed.

    Maybe a new mechanic for balancing especially for team games. King Tiger choice or Caches for OKW alternative which they can decide throughout the game would be a nice mechanic.

    Currently OKW in team games are just that contributive as other factions in contrast. Not only in caches wise but also support weapons which I think LEIG (mortar) is not that great since AOE is lackluster and MG34 which has reasonable suppression but is worse than Vickers in both damage wise and suppression.

  • #35
    1 month ago
    BloodygoodBloodygood Posts: 73

    Do other factions have truck headquarters? Would it make sense for an allied faction to have trucks? Same logic

  • #36
    1 month ago
    Balanced_GamerBalanced_… Posts: 186

    @Bloodygood said:
    Do other factions have truck headquarters? Would it make sense for an allied faction to have trucks? Same logic

    I do not see how that is even a logical explanation.

    I can just make up a story that even Brits have strong default emplacements while others dont and USF who has the ability to use their vehicle crews to repair their own vehicles.

    It is not like truck headquarters are strong or anything. Sure you can place them forward but at what cost. USF can have med truck forward and mobilize it anywhere although it is vulernable. OKW headquarters are vulnerable due to the fact that they can not mobilize or restation (ability to re-setup or move to a preferred location). If anything, they have advantages and consequences. More consequences.

    Trucks even costs extra fuel and take additional time. The only headquaters that is made vulnerable in game. All other factions, neglected because there is nothing to worry about. Does not really explain why they can't have caches does it?

    As a team game faction, in mostly 3v3 & 4v4 and arguably 2v2 they can not provide their allies with caches and even then with proper support weapons. Only Raketenwerfer as arguably their only proper support weapon whilst the MG34 and LEIG being under powered or under-performing.

    They have to use vehicles in order to be supportive mainly Luchs and Puma even Walking Stuka to even provide proper support. FHT, LEIG, MG34 can not properly provide support. Mechanized as their only proper alternative.

    Other factions have 2 roots or alternative choices. What I mean is style of play and with different unit choices. For example SU in the beginning, you can decide whether you go with first or second base. First providing Penals etc and Second Support weapons. 2 Strong alternative as they properly live up to their standards. Maxim is receiving additional suppression, that is good.

    OKW is only Mechanized because going Med, you are more likely to lose. Med being lackluster overall.

    Even the allied factions can have trucks also if the devs decided to. I honestly think that having no caches for OKW is a bad choice. Even in any war, all had to mobilize their troops so. Yeah that is logical right?

  • #37
    1 month ago
    BloodygoodBloodygood Posts: 73
    edited June 3

    Other factions's headquarters feature teching which costs fuel. The difference with OKW is that their teching, in the form of trucks which yes do cost fuel too, grants abilities which include infantry AND vehicle healing, anti-air, and area denial, all of which do carry some risk but overall serve to maintain a stronger frontline presence.

    You wrote:

    "Even then the odds are very uneven. While there is 2 Axis factions which only 1 can build caches in contrast to 3 Allied factions all 3 can build caches.

    It would make more sense if allies had a faction or 2 also not being able to produce caches."

    So, from my perspective, if you want OKW to build caches because every allied faction can, you have to allow at least one allied faction to build teching trucks whose features include infantry AND vehicle healing, anti-air, and area denial. Got it?

  • #38
    1 month ago
    Balanced_GamerBalanced_… Posts: 186

    @Bloodygood said:
    Other factions's headquarters feature teching which costs fuel. The difference with OKW is that their teching, in the form of trucks which yes do cost fuel too, grants abilities which include infantry AND vehicle healing, anti-air, and area denial, all of which do carry some risk but overall serve to maintain a stronger frontline presence.

    You wrote:

    "Even then the odds are very uneven. While there is 2 Axis factions which only 1 can build caches in contrast to 3 Allied factions all 3 can build caches.

    It would make more sense if allies had a faction or 2 also not being able to produce caches."

    So, from my perspective, if you want OKW to build caches because every allied faction can, you have to allow at least one allied faction to build teching trucks whose features include infantry AND vehicle healing, anti-air, and area denial. Got it?

    Their presence is not that strong, only PanzerHQ being the riskiest highlight.

    Tell me something. Does every other faction have to expose their bases or having the risk of getting them destroying and repaying again. The answer is simply no.

    If Brits and USF bases are destroyed, they can simply repair. No exposure at any expense. OKW has everything to lose.

    I would not mind if their the bases and still have the ability to purchase the units but now that just means they cant have field presence but now it is both the loss of presence and ability to get units. OKW suffers a lot from this so called current presence being currently lackluster.

    UKF can build Fortifications which can also be a presence even way better than what OKW has to offer. Cost effective and zero risk in comparison. Bofors has to lose only 30 fuel. OKW has to lose everything 130 fuel in addition to not being able to purchase vehicles. Bofors suffer only anti air but nothing in comparison to what OKW has got to lose!!!

    For OKW, I would say remove the trucks since it is a terrible mechanic and unbalanced. If OKW loses their base, the allies will be garanteed in many occasions a victory due to how many vehicles they can not handle due to also lacking AT capabilities.

    The anti air denial, that hardly matters because OKW hardly has that many options to use air force. Even then it sacrifices protection from ground unit within that period. Vehicle Med truck healing which USF has undeniably the best since it can re-alocate costing just 250 manpower. OKW can not reposition their trucks and that is bad.

    OKW always if and when used mechanized, they have to constantly waste 45 ammo on healing. OKW sacrifices something all the time.

    Mech sacrifices healing and infantry presence (since they are damaged and ill equipped due to lacking ammo). Helps though maintain ground but if enemy has better equipped units, it can counter OKW totally. Take Guard Rifle Infantry, easily counters mechanized OKW since it loses zero efficiency cuz it can handle both infantry and vehicles perfectly. That is why SU is best because they have the best options to counter.

    Med sacrifices field presence as there are no units to hold ground properly. FHT being countered easily again and again. IHT is useless in 1v1 although very useful in team games. LEIG is ok but mortars inadvisable for OKW.

    All in all, OKW truck system is not thought through. They have a lot more to lose than to gain. If either Mech and Med is countered, they garanteed to lose.


    It would be fine if they have no caches if they meet this following term.

    • If lose base, they still have the ability to acquire units but lose the ability to have field presence without truck

    That is the only exception I would except them without caches. Now it is just unfair. They lose base and the ability to purchase units essentially costing you twice or three times as much. Because of their overall AT capabilities.

    Anyway, OKW has lots to lose and little to gain. Think about the possibilities and the outcomes. Do not look to just to what it can do but also what it can not do!

  • #39
    1 month ago
    KatitofKatitof Posts: 6,595

    You want to play ost then.
    Go play ost.

    Also, if opponent manages to get 1500 menpower float at maxed pop cap and built multiple caches, then lack of skill on OKW players part is the problem, not lack of caches.

    Were allies slightly more aggressive there, game wouldn't have lasted 20 minutes as okw players would be base locked due to skill difference.

  • #40
    1 month ago
    Balanced_GamerBalanced_… Posts: 186

    @Katitof said:
    You want to play ost then.
    Go play ost.

    Also, if opponent manages to get 1500 menpower float at maxed pop cap and built multiple caches, then lack of skill on OKW players part is the problem, not lack of caches.

    Were allies slightly more aggressive there, game wouldn't have lasted 20 minutes as okw players would be base locked due to skill difference.

    How does that solve anything by just ignoring and jumping into something else.

    I did not indicate that their main issue was having no caches but it is still something they should have in order to suit better a team player as all others. The fact they have zero compensation for losing their bases is something they should look into then it would be better for them to have no caches. That is not main problem but it is their lacking AT capabilities which I will mention last.

    Currently as I have stated. Losing a Base, not only mean buying the truck but also reteching and to regain the ability to purchase units. Thus costing you twice as much. There is a lot of downsides with having the way OKW has with their "Truck and Teching System".

    Skill has nothing to do with this. Otherwise everyone should have no caches then if it is for the sake of "skill".

    UKF can base lock with the use of Bofors and emplacements creating heavy and better overall fortifications. Cost effective and little risk which makes it all than better than OKW has to lose.

    USF provides with very strong support weapons that can help cover ground efficiently. Captain base being very strong (the best USF tech choice) as it has all the tools required for pure territorial strength. Better than what OKW has to either offer with either Mech and Med combined.

    SU has very powerful AT unit choices especially doctrines that easily counter OKW Mechanized Tech. OKW infantry units cant carry the battle without upgrades since Volks are nothing without weapon upgrades. Heavily reliance is placed on vehicles and use of med kits. Drains excessively ammo and fuel at what cost.

    The real main issue is their base teching system being overall unbalanced for their lacking AT capabilities. For the way it currently is, there should be discount for their base after it is destroyed for their lacking AT capabilities. As other factions have just the simplest ability to repair their buildings when destroyed for USF and UKF only. SU and WEHR have to replace but its cheaper and it never gets destroyed.

    OKW bases is the only bases in game to ever get destroyed of them all. That is not skill, it is a fact. It is no skill if allied players effortlessly use "ARTY ABILITIES" onto a base, coordinating and focusing fire after one base after another.


    OKW suffers in some aspects:

    1, Very Poor AT capabilities since the units are lackluster, both Raketenwerfer and Sturmpio AT upgrade in game. Does not make up for their losses. This is the main issue. Otherwise it is fine to justify for their difficulties. You can not a faction with having one downside on top of having another downside on that area, which is AT for OKW in this case.

    2, Heavily reliance on both ammo and fuel, fuel mostly. If you go Mech, you sacrifice a lot of ammo meaning Volks will have bolt actions only making them the least effective unit on the field. Volksgrenadiers are only good enough when they have upgrades. Without them, they are easily outmatched by other infantry.

    If you go Med, you sacrifice territorial gains since FHT timing is the worst and its overall vulnerability. Vulnerable due to fact Raketenwerfer and Sturmpio AT roles being overall underperforming and lackluster. That explains why their are always easily countered.LEIG which is good but not enough to help in your favour because of the lack of AT (anti tank capabilities which OKW lacks). Med is always a bad teching choice in 1v1. Med Base could be actually a good choice if it were not for the poor and lacking AT utility OKW has got under their sleeves.

    As I have said, AT is their main issue and should be resolved. To justify for their losses and inability to produce tanks if they lose any bases by an chance.


    **Anti Tank, Anti Tank, Anti Tank :/ **

    For me, what would make them justified without caches and refund at all is if they had proper enough AT which they do not have at all. Fuel is something they really desperately need in order to get any chance of having any survivability to counter for their lacking AT capabilities which is currently heavily undermined.

    https://community.companyofheroes.com/discussion/245914/okw-all-raketenwerfer-43-anti-tank#latest
    * Another post and look to comment 25# as to why both Raketenwerfer and Sturmpio should be changed to fit better as a proper self sufficient AT unit.

    In Conclusion. Revamp both Raketenwerfer and Sturmpio AT to fit better their roles and to justify for their lacking capabilities. Then I would say, fine to no caches and no discount! If they have to counter the fuel issue, at least be able to counter the allied fuel superiority. OKW overall AT utility is the poorest or most undermined of all factions, the AT support weapon and Infantry AT unit being the worst. Not suitable enough as an AT unit.

    It is not biased, it is a fact! Try Sturmpio out and you will say for certain, it is crap and so not worth it for its price also!

    Raketenwerfer which is a sneaky assassin. It does simply play a supportive AT role. 270 manpower, there should actually be more but its crap. For 280 manpower for a USF AT gun is simply 2-3 times better than Rak alone.

    Devs, reevaluate this and consider for the lacking proper AT utility OKW has to counter effectively enough for their problems. Then I am fine with bases being destroyed and no refund and no caches. Now it is simply unjustified because they are really undermined!

  • #41
    1 month ago
    C3ToothC3Tooth Posts: 395
    I wish to have a 1v1 as I play Okw,you play USF. Then we can see whats the truly problems of both faction.
  • #42
    1 month ago
    Balanced_GamerBalanced_… Posts: 186

    If you know well enough that OKW suffer in terms of AT (Rak and Sturmpio AT), then there would be no need for a 1v1! It is rather self evident. Anyone can see that this is true! 1v1 proves nothing other than who is better in micro (depends on map and its situational) and overall knows his unit choices. It is rather a poor assessment and evaluation of the units at hand.

    Try using Rak to protect FHT or Sturmpio. Maybe trying even protecting Luchs with either one Rak or one Sturmpio. Nothing in comparison to one of any other factions AT guns (which is more than satisfactory enough than 2 Raks in some ways) especially AT infantry unit. Sturmpio does not scare off but others does, and that is self-evident. Come back to me then it say that if this is even viable or proficient enough. Or maybe even say if it is good enough which it clearly is not!

    Check https://community.companyofheroes.com/discussion/245957/sturmpio-2-pzshreks-and-revamp-raketenwerfer#latest
    My comment number 9#

  • #43
    1 month ago
    C3ToothC3Tooth Posts: 395
    Are you afraid of I can use current Okw AT options to destroy USF vehicles?
  • #44
    1 month ago
    C3ToothC3Tooth Posts: 395
    All I need is a Riflemen snare and an ATgun. You have at least 2 Volk snare, a Sturm shreck and an ATgun but still not enough? How much of AT power do you need?

    Try to use USF vehicles and prove me wrong.
  • #45
    1 month ago
    Balanced_GamerBalanced_… Posts: 186

    @C3Tooth said:
    All I need is a Riflemen snare and an ATgun. You have at least 2 Volk snare, a Sturm shreck and an ATgun but still not enough? How much of AT power do you need?

    Try to use USF vehicles and prove me wrong.

    It is not power that I am asking for. Just enough to scare off and be adaptable as an efficient support unit.

    Like what you said. Riflemen in combination with AT gun is more efficient and riskier to go up against than a Volks with Rak. Since the USF AT gun (especially other AT guns with longer range) has a higher advantage and it adapts better in many more situations.

    In another aspect. Riflemen with bazookas is better and stronger in comparison to lackluster Sturmpio 1 Pzshrek.

    I just believe that Sturmpio AT should be good enough in the sense where it should feel as a threat rather than something that can be easily ignored. Why it is currently ignored is because of it is weak and its minor impact/effect.

    I mean, would you rush a vehicle past a Sturmpio or Rak in comparison to any other avilable AT gun or AT infantry? Also, what are the chances they make it out alive? :|

    If you take any other factions AT roles, they are more devastating and the likelihood of your vehicles surviving against is slimmer because of the range, width, DPS, targeting, impact (if it scares and considered dangerous enough which Sturmpio is not) and adaption in different situations.

    If I had to compare Rear Echelon with 2 bazookas, it is threatening and something I would not risk using my vehicles to get past by it because I know it will cost me a lot of health and a higher possibility of losing my vehicle (take light vehicles) than to a Sturmpio AT. Maybe even compare just using 1 bazooka with Riflemen is already scarier than the Sturmpio with 1 Pzshrek as the player is aware of the possibility of being snared by the Riflemen.

    Sturmpio mostly and even Rak need to change into a more supportive role and become a unit that scares enough, if you get what I am trying to say! ;)


    I think for 70 ammo for Sturmpio AT.

    The 2 alternatives for Sturmpio AT revamp I believe should be, to make it scary enough like others:

    1./ option. It should either get a Faster reload being 5 seconds instead of 8. To match other factions similar DPS for hand held AT. Once upgraded, it can not pick up any other weapon. So that it does not become powerful but at least a strong enough impact

    2./ option. When upgraded with AT. Sturmpio will receive an AT snare that goes along with the 1 Pzshrek. Removes that stun grenade for AT snare.

    Either way, it needs some sort of fix and improvements!

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.