[OKW][4v4] Stuka too potent / arrives too early

#1
4 months ago

Stuka arrives too early or is highly overperforming for its cost when it arrives to the field. In 4v4 this is the easy I win button when opponent happens to be brits, soviet in t2 or USF with support weapons. It hard counters all the allied support weapon teams and often allows axis inf to walk over any mg due to death loop of mg team. Overall in current state of 4v4 artillery seems to be the go to choice with no negative trade-offs as there is no proper way to counter a stuka. What makes it worse when several okw players go for it or even two stukas per player.

As per countering it, infantry can't flank it in 4v4 maps due to every sector being easily covered with mg or infantry counter, light vehicles are costly and require several hits to take out stuka giving it more than enough time to just back off to base area (t-70, stuart, scout car, m20, AEC) and by the time mediums are available axis usually has more than enough inf and OKW at guns to tear them apart. To balance it out I propose one of following changes:

  • Stuka should arrive as late as katyuasha. There is no reason to give OKW access to such a potent rocket artillery this early on
  • Reduce the amount of rockets stuka fires without veterancy to make it more in line with every other rocket artillery unit. Every other rocket artillery unit has lost their ability to do precision strikes
  • Stuka should have a lot less hp, as weak as katyuasha or werfer. If you get caught you should be punished for it
  • Limit stukas per player to one
  • Move stuka to t4

Comments

  • #2
    4 months ago
    C3ToothC3Tooth Posts: 910

    there is no proper way to counter a stuka

    Please teach me how to fight a Bofors with triples Mortar pits defending a fuel/Vic area

  • #3
    4 months ago
    mrdjjag81mrdjjag81 Posts: 307
    edited December 2020

    @C3Tooth said:

    there is no proper way to counter a stuka

    Please teach me how to fight a Bofors with triples Mortar pits defending a fuel/Vic area

    Leig is already a problem, or at least has forced this game to become simply boring to play against okw lately as brit when all you see it´s leig on some maps. Only indirect fire brit has is mortar pits. But sure, of course you have to deal with Walking stuka also. Its ridiculous some times, some games it rains down fire-Leigshell, standard leigShell, Walking stuka barrage whish gain vet like crazy and get zero cooldown very fast. Now this is not on all map, but maps thats hard to flank on it's not even fun. Good luck with a bofors and mortar pit on that

  • #4
    4 months ago
    C3ToothC3Tooth Posts: 910

    @mrdjjag81
    Leig & Stuka doesnt being in the same tech. If you want both Leig & Stuka, it would cost 205fuel for tech and a Stuka

  • #5
    4 months ago

    @C3Tooth said:

    there is no proper way to counter a stuka

    Please teach me how to fight a Bofors with triples Mortar pits defending a fuel/Vic area

    We are talking 4v4 here. British emplacements get countered by at guns and Leig so stuka is hardly even necessary. And they are better units against it as the emplacements will embrace as often as you stuka barrage them. In comparison, how do you counter stuka? It's a free artillery barrage every minute during a game phase when the biggest threat is has to face is stuart. But that never happens if the axis player is smart enough to micro stuka back to safety after each barrage. So in reality there is no real counter to it. Every other rocket artillery unit is a late game unit. When british land mattress wasn't it was made one. Why is stuka different? OKW already has the tools to deal with everything allies has

  • #6
    4 months ago

    @C3Tooth said:
    @mrdjjag81
    Leig & Stuka doesnt being in the same tech. If you want both Leig & Stuka, it would cost 205fuel for tech and a Stuka

    true, i mean that's the worst case if you face 2 okw on same side as brit. If your lucky u have an soviet ally that can help with katyscha, but that comes so late compare to Walking stuka

  • #7
    4 months ago
    C3ToothC3Tooth Posts: 910

    I also play 4v4

    To my thought, the game is designed for 1v1,2v2.
    Remove Stuka on Light vehicle tech will remove the only option in the tech to fight placements.

    Further more
    . Stuka is much less dangerous than double Leig. Like, they shoot once every 90sec, and not every player can make that exact 90sec.
    . Go fo Light tech is ammo consuming for healing.
    . Delay Medium.

  • #8
    3 months ago

    @C3Tooth said:
    I also play 4v4

    To my thought, the game is designed for 1v1,2v2.
    Remove Stuka on Light vehicle tech will remove the only option in the tech to fight placements.

    Further more
    . Stuka is much less dangerous than double Leig. Like, they shoot once every 90sec, and not every player can make that exact 90sec.
    . Go fo Light tech is ammo consuming for healing.
    . Delay Medium.

    1v1 and 2v2 arguments got old years ago. Good amount of players play 4v4 and considering how old game this is you would think that you would like the community to not leave due to balance issues. In any case let's not forget that OKW already have raketen which already far exceeds the range of bofors. So does Puma. Not to mention lieg. So you already have 3 options to deal with that particular emplacement without it ever being able to fire a shot back. And one of them is available no matter which tech route you go. Then you have commander specific call-ins. And on top of that you need rocket artillery? Other emplacements aren't even an issue when you can just walk in with your inf. In 4v4 emplacements get torn apart so easily, especially late game that they are practically useless resource sink. And this leaves British forces in a very poor state in 4v4

    It's odd how your argument is that "Stuka needs to remain in order to counter emplacements" but what can allies do to counter your stuka? You have the tools. You just don't want to use them. Allies don't have the tools to hunt down your stuka without a serious risk of losing the first light/medium tank or picking an appropriate commander to do so. One could even argue that OKW t2 isn't meant for countering emplacements. Just like soviet t2 has no counter to snipers or allies still have to do t2 or t3 to gain access to AT guns which OKW gains by default.

  • #9
    3 months ago
    ARMYguyARMYguy Posts: 850

    I don't think I have ever made a stuka til I had a medium, and even then you risk losing when doing so as OKW. Perhaps in low skill games where players just make emplacements in their base, the stuka seems OP. In actual matches vs skilled players, a stuka is either not made at all due to how easy it is to kill and dodge, or made very late in the game. There are many more pressing issues to fix with OKW imo.

  • #10
    3 months ago
    C3ToothC3Tooth Posts: 910

    1v1 and 2v2 arguments or not. A mid tech should not too focus on a single perspective.
    Thats why Penal has PTRS so Tier1 has AT option. USF Lieu/Cap tech mixed.

    There is a main question is, where you place your Bofors? On fuel? Then congrats you already have advantage.

    raketen which already far exceeds the range of bofors. So does Puma. Not to mention lieg. So you already have 3 options to deal with that particular emplacement without it ever being able to fire a shot back.

    Many people feel like to write down an exactly scenario. Rak there, Puma there, Stuka behind. Those are like 900 worth of manpower, 270fuel of tech & vehicles. Where are your 900mp & 200fuel (minus tech) worth of army to fight those 3 units?
    Then I can talking about an AEC with double Piat squad punish my Luch.

    There are some options to counter Stuka:

    • A clown car and with upgraded Penal.
    • Halftrack with upgraded Penal.
    • Partisan
    • M20 zook
    • Stuart
    • AEC (no more locked when use Bofors in winter patch)
    • Any commander with halftrack with double Zook/Piat squads.

    Things to defends Bofors

    • a Mortar pit
    • a Layer of sandbag
    • Double Tommy/Sapper on front with double Bren/Piat behind double sandbag for sight. (complete negate Rak & Puma)
    • an ATgun
      1100mp of units can well defend a fuel point. I dont know why you think this is not good.
  • #11
    3 months ago

    @Teme91 said:

    @C3Tooth said:

    there is no proper way to counter a stuka

    Please teach me how to fight a Bofors with triples Mortar pits defending a fuel/Vic area

    . In comparison, how do you counter stuka? It's a free artillery barrage every minute during a game phase when the biggest threat is has to face is stuart. But that never happens if the axis player is smart enough to micro stuka back to safety after each barrage. So in reality there is no real counter to it. Every other rocket artillery unit is a late game unit. When british land mattress wasn't it was made one. Why is stuka different? OKW already has the tools to deal with everything allies has

    in comparison USF mortar was moved from T1 to T0 to help them fight mgs, and they had smoke nades in T0 before to fight those same mgs and that apparently wasn't enough.

    OKW got nothing to fight mgs out of T0, no smoke nades no mortars/lelgs.

    counter the stuka the way you should counter any artillery unit - being mobile.
    contrary to all other artillery, the stuka barrage is very linear and easier to dodge.

  • #12
    3 months ago
    C3ToothC3Tooth Posts: 910

    @Interceptor USF didnt have Mortar. Because they have Supportgun.
    Mortar only added later right into T0 so USF can fight Ost MGs.

    But yes, I agree Okw can be helpless vs Maxim spam.

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.

DeutschEnglishEspañolFrançaisItalianoРусский