[UKF] UKF giving Soviets vickers lmg's

#1
2 years ago

This is some exploitative OP'ness is it not?

Giving cheap conscripts or OP penals the ability to pick up weapons from the UKF half track acting a mule is OP and unfair in my opinion. Just played against this and they're like Ostruppen who've hit the jackpot on pick ups or obers on steroids, but far more potent. Funny because the only other time I've seen it was only the other day with CrossFire and CaptainPrice doing the same. So I assume it's a recent thing? Pretty low as a strategy.

I know it acts as a weapon drop and the enemy could pick them up also theoretically, but that obviously doesn't happen. So I don't know how you'd balance that. You'd think make it UKF only pick ups from that haltrack but that's not consistant with pick ups.

Solution: Make them like the weapon racks in the base. UKF infantry approach said halftrack and pick the weapons that they want with infantry selected.

«1

Comments

  • #2
    2 years ago
    Meh, they still need to be paid for and id much sooner face them in the hands of soviet infantry than brit infantry who can shoot straight and have durability all in one package
  • #3
    2 years ago
    VipperVipper Posts: 3,723
    edited February 2017

    After WBP things will turn ugly with conscript using both LMG and Piats. Especially with PPsh conscripts.

    In addition the m3 allows the R. Engineers to equip double LMG something that was removed from other doctrines. Although heavy sapper not only can still double equip LMG but they can also 3 equip LMGs.

    The M3 is simply badly designed, the ability to drop weapon should simply be removed from the game.

  • #4
    2 years ago
    KatitofKatitof Posts: 6,602

    They aren't free and each weapon given to ally is one less weapon you can use yourself.

  • #5
    2 years ago
    Farra13Farra13 Posts: 647

    @Katitof said:
    They aren't free and each weapon given to ally is one less weapon you can use yourself.

    That is completely irrelevant, cost is hardly a factor when compared to game design. Infantry of a faction like the US are designed around the fact they can equip those types of weapons from the racks, units like Penals are not, hence why USF and UKF cannot share their racks with their teammates. Being able to give Penals (a unit that vickers spam is most prevelant on) that were never designed to be able to do so, is an awful idea, as they aren't properly balanced for it and end up seriously overperforming. @SquishyMuffin is right, only the players troops should be able to equip weapons from the halftrack.

  • #7
    2 years ago
    HingieHingie Posts: 1,985

    I, too, think that the ability to drop Vickers at will for everyone to pick them up is seriously broken. Penals are as good at all ranges because they are not given any long range upgrade. If they get one from an Ally, that makes them overperform in an unacceptable degree, especially since they get enormous amount of accuracy bonuses with vet which lead to double Vickers on Penals being way too good.

  • #8
    2 years ago
    Farra13Farra13 Posts: 647

    @Katitof said:

    And OKW is not supposed to benefit from caches, hence they don't have them, yet ost can provide them that option.

    OKW's salvage was never corrected when Relic standardised their resource intake and upkeep, an oversight on their part, as it left a very large resource disparity for OKW only games outside 1v1, something they don't see as high priority currently. The only reason people find OKW having access to caches currently through teamates acceptable is due to that fact. If they fixed that, I doubt many would argue against removing the ability to share caches with them.

    OKW isn't supposed to reinforce on the field, yet ost can provide 251.

    Niether are the UKF? That cuts both ways, but it doesn't present such a massive balance issue as being able to equip every infantry unit in your and your allies armies with weapon upgrades.

  • #9
    2 years ago
    KatitofKatitof Posts: 6,602

    @Farra13 said:

    @Katitof said:

    And OKW is not supposed to benefit from caches, hence they don't have them, yet ost can provide them that option.

    OKW's salvage was never corrected when Relic standardised their resource intake and upkeep, an oversight on their part, as it left a very large resource disparity for OKW only games outside 1v1, something they don't see as high priority currently.

    Then make a separate thread about it, even ask Smith and the others.

    The only reason people find OKW having access to caches currently through teamates acceptable is due to that fact. If they fixed that, I doubt many would argue against removing the ability to share caches with them.

    OKW isn't supposed to reinforce on the field, yet ost can provide 251.

    Niether are the UKF? That cuts both ways, but it doesn't present such a massive balance issue as being able to equip every infantry unit in your and your allies armies with weapon upgrades.

    UKF actually is supposed to with relatively cheap forward assemblies. They also have doctrinal M5, which can reinforce, so by all means, they are intended and have tools to do so, mainly doctrinal.

    By the way there is another synergy which I have not mentioned - USF can give others their vehicles, which can be a huge boost for soviet.

  • #10
    2 years ago
    Farra13Farra13 Posts: 647

    @Katitof said:

    By the way there is another synergy which I have not mentioned - USF can give others their vehicles, which can be a huge boost for soviet.

    Lmao, I'd never thought of that. Seeing cons driving a Jackson around would make my day.

    As for other synergy have you ever seen an incendiary strike and a white phosepherus barrage? Ultimate squad wipe call in.

    @Katitof said:

    UKF actually is supposed to with relatively cheap forward assemblies. They also have doctrinal M5, which can reinforce, so by all means, they are intended and have tools to do so, mainly doctrinal.

    The same could be argue for the medtruck, and as for reinforcing in the field with the 251, its uncommon as hell and kind unecessary as OKW can just fall back as the medtruck is usually pretty far foward on the field.

  • #11
    2 years ago

    and what about the ost command panzer 4 and okw command panther they could stack as well.

  • #12
    2 years ago
    GrittleGrittle Posts: 993

    Well, in order to give soviets LMGs that you have to pay for on your own dime. You have to go out and use a b-grade commander and miss out on the likes of commandos, land mattresses, AVREs, and other off-map and doctrinal goodies found on the other commanders.

    And please don't say "well ur wron bcase tht b-grd cmmndeer is lly god n stuff" because I have never seen or heard Special Weapons Regiment or it's abilities (barring the croc) in this forums until today.

  • #13
    2 years ago
    LazarusLazarus Posts: 4,020

    @Grittle said:
    And please don't say "well ur wron bcase tht b-grd cmmndeer is lly god n stuff" because I have never seen or heard Special Weapons Regiment or it's abilities (barring the croc) in this forums until today.

    Doesn't make the commander bad. He's my stock 2 v 2 + com. I do this all the time. It's not unbeatable OP, but I feel like the price should go up on the dropped weapons just to discourage you from spamming them completely in lieu of anything else. It's a pain with cons and Penals but it's infinitely worse if you start spamming them on REs and RM.

    You've got light AT with passive maphax (which just so you know, has also been discussed on this forum), you've got mobile forward combat reinforcement for British units, you've got an excellent artillery strike, you've got one of the best heavies in the game...

    The commander is fantastic. It's just not meta.

    Also as Vipper mentioned - we need to look forward. WBP PIATs are not a joke. Double equipping Cons and giving them AT grenades and Oorah is a recipe for disaster.

  • #14
    2 years ago

    @Lazarus said:

    @Grittle said:
    And please don't say "well ur wron bcase tht b-grd cmmndeer is lly god n stuff" because I have never seen or heard Special Weapons Regiment or it's abilities (barring the croc) in this forums until today.

    Doesn't make the commander bad. He's my stock 2 v 2 + com. I do this all the time. It's not unbeatable OP, but I feel like the price should go up on the dropped weapons just to discourage you from spamming them completely in lieu of anything else. It's a pain with cons and Penals but it's infinitely worse if you start spamming them on REs and RM.

    You've got light AT with passive maphax (which just so you know, has also been discussed on this forum), you've got mobile forward combat reinforcement for British units, you've got an excellent artillery strike, you've got one of the best heavies in the game...

    The commander is fantastic. It's just not meta.

    Also as Vipper mentioned - we need to look forward. WBP PIATs are not a joke. Double equipping Cons and giving them AT grenades and Oorah is a recipe for disaster.

    those type of map hacks are not a problem. Soviets have them on the su-85, ostheer has them on flame half-track, okw has them on kubel and ir half-track. The only one that is considered op would be the ir half-track (Ir is often used within top 20 teams). Valentine is also op, but it takes up 12 pop.

    The crocodile is not the best heavy in the game. The kt, normal tiger, kv-2, sturm tiger, pershing, and isu-152 are better than the croc. All of those tanks can engage both infantry and armor.

  • #15
    2 years ago
    Farra13Farra13 Posts: 647

    Weapon upgrades are one of the main issues with infantry balance at the moment, leaving it as an exploit is only going to continue to cause problems. An example being cons armed with piats, a unit that was never designed to have at weapons as the design team has stated that units with snares (exception being riflemen) shouldn't have access to handheld at as well. Locking the halftrack so it mirrors weapon racks is the most sensible idea.

  • #16
    2 years ago
    PastulioPastulio Posts: 2,058

    OP got TRUMPED and now "it's OP and need a nerf". Allies will be fully nerfed next patch.

    Limited to 1 doctrine and expensive to arm all.
    If you want to remove it, don't foget to remove benefit from caches
    for OKW.

  • #17
    2 years ago
    LazarusLazarus Posts: 4,020

    @company14u2 said:

    those type of map hacks are not a problem. Soviets have them on the su-85, ostheer has them on flame half-track, okw has them on kubel and ir half-track. The only one that is considered op would be the ir half-track (Ir is often used within top 20 teams). Valentine is also op, but it takes up 12 pop.

    Everything you've listed barring the IR HT are active maphax that operate on a limited time. Not passive, like I said, and IR doesn't operate in a 360 degree cone - but that's neither here nor there.

    The doctrines great, it's just not some form of commandos. Yes, arming an ally is expensive - but you know what's great about arming a USF blob? They've got muni to spare for their com abilities. WP smoke, or insta-pop smoke, or RM smoke, or grenades, or HVAP, or M20 mines, Major recon and arty... Soviets can leave demos and mines everywhere, spam AT grenades with PIATs, flamethrowers galore, satchel charges, incendiary barrages not to mention they acquire larger portions of map through their augmented strength.

  • #18
    2 years ago
    GrittleGrittle Posts: 993

    @Lazarus said:
    snoopy the dog

    B-grade doesn't mean bad. I hope

    B-grade, in my opinion, means a decent commander that is just overshadowed in more situations I.E Lightning War Doctrine is a B-grade commander: it's really good, but Assault Support and Mechanized Support are just better in more situations in it.

    Now a truly bad commander, like NKVD rifle disruption, is just bad.

    but still, by giving soviets PIATs and Vickers from this commander, you are diverting resources from your own munitions pool and giving it to a faction where munitions are more common than snow in siberia. essentially throwing water at a lake.

    This also doesn't help when you, as a UKF player, already is in dire need of munitions yourself for your own weapons, grenades, and off map artillery.

  • #19
    2 years ago
    The ability is akin to a wehr player air dropping resourses to the OKW who arnt supposed to gain extra outside of salvage, for the sake of consistency if one gets removed so should the other, as i have in a 4v got out a KT in about 13 minutes from mass airdrop. Inter faction synergy is just a factor in team games, its what makes them appealing to some, they wont ever be competitive simply because cheese is infinitely easier to pull off.
  • #20
    2 years ago
    VipperVipper Posts: 3,723

    This Resupply M3 bypasses a number of restriction that are imposed for reason:
    For instance allows USF infantry to double equip LMGs which is restricted with WBP.
    It allow R.Eng to double equip LMGs again restricted with WBP.

    In the end of the day if giving dropping weapons for any unit to pick is not issue give a similar ability to Axis allowing them to drop lmg42s and schrecks.

  • #21
    2 years ago
    Oooo @Vipper 's argument looks solid. How will @Katitof respond? xD
  • #22
    2 years ago
    LazarusLazarus Posts: 4,020

    Well the obvious response there is to just impose the same limitation for those two specific units...

  • #23
    2 years ago
    le12role12ro Posts: 2,297 mod
    edited February 2017

    This is most likely an unexpected bug, which should be reported to the WBP thread instead of using it for balance argument. The limitation has been in place for a while, and there were countless games, but nobody yet has reported this unexpected implementation of weapon limitation. Not even the modders or wbp testers use this commander, it seems.

  • #25
    2 years ago
    VipperVipper Posts: 3,723
    edited February 2017

    Economical issues are completely irrelevant with the issue of being able to equip any unit on the field with double LMG or double AT weapons and quiet frankly off topic.

    If one believes that cashes or airdrop should not benefits allies, one should start another thread explaining his view.

  • #26
    2 years ago
    GrittleGrittle Posts: 993

    @Vipper said:
    Economical issues are completely irrelevant with the issue of being able to equip any unit on the field with double LMG or double AT weapons and quiet frankly off topic.

    If one believes that cashes or airdrop should not benefits allies, one should start another thread explaining his view.

    Not an argument, it is on topic.

    giving weapons to allies is the same as donating munitions to an ally.

    by double pumping reefermen with dual vickers, you are putting your UKF ally at an economic disadvantage. that is 120 less munitions the UKF player has for his own army and abilities.

    This is the same for ostheer supply drops: as an ostheer player, you are giving up 300 manpower to drop resources that may or may not go into enemy hands to an ally that may or may not use it the way you hope.

    Now, I would personally like to see the stats of the vickers lmg compared to the other lmgs in the game. This would give some understanding of what to do.

  • #27
    2 years ago
    VipperVipper Posts: 3,723
    edited February 2017

    @Grittle said:
    Not an argument, it is on topic.

    giving weapons to allies is the same as donating munitions to an ally.

    by double pumping reefermen with dual vickers, you are putting your UKF ally at an economic disadvantage. that is 120 less munitions the UKF player has for his own army and abilities.

    This is the same for ostheer supply drops: as an ostheer player, you are giving up 300 manpower to drop resources that may or may not go into enemy hands to an ally that may or may not use it the way you hope.

    Now, I would personally like to see the stats of the vickers lmg compared to the other lmgs in the game. This would give some understanding of what to do.

    It is off topic. This also about dual LMG to Royal engineers if you play 1v1 something WBP tried to restrict.

    In addition supply drop zone is not limited has it equivalent in allied supply drop. M3 resupply truck is limited to allies, once more if it fine give an equivalent to axis side.

    If in you opinion giving thing to allied is flawed consider USF giving vehicles to allies, UKF and USF being able to drop support weapon for allied and list can go on. But it is off Topic.

    Vicker K is slightly weaker then Lmg42

  • #28
    2 years ago
    le12role12ro Posts: 2,297 mod
    edited February 2017

    [Moderator Input] The evidence provided by the posters clearly demonstrate that it is on topic. Additionally, my own personal bias thinks it is on topic. Continue with the discussion, :]

  • #29
    2 years ago
    The only way i could see being able to get around sharing the weapons (which i again think is fine, its a team game not a cluster of 1v1s) would be to make proximity allow upgrading on the field, but im sure that would be ripe with bug potential
  • #30
    2 years ago
    _Aqua__Aqua_ Posts: 1,951

    Its annoying, but I'm not convinced its game breaking, at least for K-Guns. Their DPS is already quite similar to Guards' DPs rather than the LMG42 or 1919s, so they're quite a bit weaker than other dual LMG troops. While they're a pain in the ass on Penals or Cons, they can be dealt with and are likely unintended on Heavy Sappers.

    On the other hand, its PIATs on Cons that makes me very, very nervous, especially with their WBP overhaul.

  • #31
    2 years ago
    Farra13Farra13 Posts: 647

    Its Soviets recieving weapon upgrades that i take more concern with, USF and UKF infantry are designed with those upgrades in mind. Sov infantry are not. Penals with vickers are monsterous and Cons with the WBP piats will be the ultimate at infantry with oorah and a snare.

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.