[OKW] Feuersturm Doctrine needs a buff

#1
2 years ago

Old news and there are definitely other commanders for other factions that suck more, but you know. Considering this was released in tandem with the no faults Pershing commander, this commander is very, very lackluster; even though the flamer on sturms can be invaluable on some maps. Which is why I have it in my loadout.

Hetzer needs a buff somehow. Make it vet quicker. Make its bursts longer or increase the range. Its turretless so it needs to be good at something in return imo. As an AI vehicle it is a bit hopeless.

Recoup losses needs a longer timer. Too short for the munition price. The icon above the units is a bit ugly too.

Rocket Barrage is too expensive for what it does.

«1

Comments

  • #2
    2 years ago
    WiderstreitWiderstre… Posts: 950
    Sure it need a buff, but there are many useless commanders too... ^^
  • #3
    2 years ago
    _Aqua__Aqua_ Posts: 1,951

    The Hetzer's an easy fix, cp from 8 to 6 and fuel cost from 100 to 80.

    The problem is that the doctrine is like Overwatch, its just a random hodge-podge of abilities with no real focus or strategy, especially compared to the USF and UKF doctrines released at the same time that were concise and specifically tailored to give their factions exactly what they needed. Even if all 5 of its abilities were up to snuff, I still doubt this doctrine (and Overwatch) would be viable in the least with its current ability set.

  • #4
    2 years ago
    ubermenschubermensch Posts: 44

    I think the hetzer should get the KV8 treatment in terms of switching between an AT role and an AI one. I mean the hetzer did have a TD variant and while I doubt they had a way to switch what comes out of the turret compared to the KV8 it would add some more value and use to it.

  • #5
    2 years ago
    KurfürstKurfürst Posts: 289

    Several doctrines need a reshuffling of their abilities... there are simply too many very good doctrines that are strong all around, while others are simply meh.

    If fauersturm is about kaboom, I would consider adding the Sturmtiger in it, while replacing the SturmTee with a Command Panther in the Elite Armor doctrine.

  • #6
    2 years ago
    SquishyMuffinSquishyMu… Posts: 434

    Hmm interesting swaps. But the abilities themselves would still need buffing. Wonder what could go in Special Ops? Something from Wehr commanders?

  • #7
    2 years ago
    ThatguyThatguy Posts: 41
    edited May 2017

    give feuersturm a v2 instead of the stuka barrage, think sturmtiger rocket anywhere on the map with some warning time to compensate (200 munitions)

  • #8
    2 years ago
    ThatguyThatguy Posts: 41
    edited May 2017

    also buff the damage the hetzer does to buildings and maybe replace sturmpoineer flamethrowers with the ability for infantry to destroy points like in coh1 (to follow a map destruction theme)

  • #9
    2 years ago
    ThatguyThatguy Posts: 41

    I also think the switch kurfurst suggested would be great, the sturmtiger could replace recoup losses (with it's existing cp cost). special operations could get the ability for base structures to pack up and move (to avoid artillery, keep opponent guessing, etc.)

  • #10
    2 years ago
    ThatguyThatguy Posts: 41
    edited May 2017

    the new feursrsturm doctrine would look something along the lines of

    0- thorough salvage

    4- destroy points

    8- hetzer (could be changed to 6 like aqua suggested)

    11- sturmtiger

    12- v2

  • #11
    2 years ago
    LazarusLazarus Posts: 4,090

    6CP Hetzer, and either fix its vet gain or lower the vet requirements. If you insta-buy and massacre AI with it for 20 minutes you might reach vet 4. It's just not feasible.

  • #12
    2 years ago
    ThatguyThatguy Posts: 41

    I agree

  • #13
    2 years ago
    spider_manspider_man Posts: 1

    I agree

  • #14
    2 years ago
    QuesocitoQuesocito Posts: 128

    I agree it needs a buff, but as others pointed out, other commanders do as well. and does it look like Lelic cares? Give it another year i say... Look how long it took to buff ass grens...

  • #15
    2 years ago
    QuesocitoQuesocito Posts: 128

    @Thatguy said:
    the new feursrsturm doctrine would look something along the lines of

    0- thorough salvage

    4- destroy points

    8- hetzer (could be changed to 6 like aqua suggested)

    11- sturmtiger

    12- v2

    you left out the spio flamer.. its one of the only reasons i(and many others) use that doc..

  • #16
    2 years ago
    SkysTheLimitSkysTheLi… Posts: 2,271

    @Thatguy said:
    11- sturmtiger

    12- v2

    Are you kidding me?

  • #18
    2 years ago
    thedarkarmadillothedarkar… Posts: 5,822
    @lazarus and not barred from base sectors
  • #19
    2 years ago
    _Aqua__Aqua_ Posts: 1,951

    @Lazarus @thedarkarmadillo Guys, plz, this is OKW we're talking about here. If you really want balance, it should also permanently debuff all Brit units since it should also blow up that one Tommy's 'nan, an 'er house.

  • #20
    2 years ago
    Farra13Farra13 Posts: 647

    @aqua No need to nerf the poor brit sections, they can't hear the jericho sirens anyway. Wanking apparently makes you deaf.

  • #21
    2 years ago
    SquishyMuffinSquishyMu… Posts: 434
    edited May 2017

    Historically accurate at least. Anywhere in fog of war. No warning. etc. UKF can have an ability that deceives okw by 'false communication via secret channels' to make the v2's hit invaluable targets. Kappa,

  • #22
    2 years ago
    ThatguyThatguy Posts: 41

    @Quesocito said:

    @Thatguy said:
    the new feursrsturm doctrine would look something along the lines of

    0- thorough salvage

    4- destroy points

    8- hetzer (could be changed to 6 like aqua suggested)

    11- sturmtiger

    12- v2

    you left out the spio flamer.. its one of the only reasons i(and many others) use that doc..

    If the idea of this doctrine is map destruction, we could take out thorough salvage to add it back to the revised doctrine idea.

  • #23
    2 years ago
    comrade_daelincomrade_d… Posts: 2,948

    Considering what people have said about this commander I feel it's designed for specific types of maps; naturally this means that using this commander in other maps makes it useless.
    I think that is a useful line of thinking though; if Relic designed commanders for specific types of maps we may actually have opportunity for balance; the problem is that you'd need many more commanders to prevent the game from being stale, otherwise having only like eight commanders for a large variety of maps means the faction sucks nazi balls, or designed in a way to be so cheesy that commanders augments them to an insignificant degree.
    For Feurersturm specifically, needing a buff raises the question of why: it "needs" a buff in terms of it being sucky in everything except urban maps, but that's like saying Riflemen need a buff against tanks...
    I think that's the biggest disadvantage of commanders, people expect them to carry a theme yet also be versatile, which isn't always possible.

  • #24
    2 years ago
    QuesocitoQuesocito Posts: 128
    edited June 2017

    @comrade_daelin said:
    For Feurersturm specifically, needing a buff raises the question of why: it "needs" a buff in terms of it being sucky in everything except urban maps, but that's like saying Riflemen need a buff against tanks...
    I think that's the biggest disadvantage of commanders, people expect them to carry a theme yet also be versatile, which isn't always possible.

    your reasoning is sound, the subject is incorrect.. have u tried to use the hetzer? have u used this doctrine? even if it is meant for maps with lots of buildings, it doesnt change the fact that the hetzer is stupid and comes in far too late for its weakness.. instead of assuming everyone is wrong for saying the doctrine is weak, maybe you should TRY to see what they are saying..??

    have u compared the uselessness of any of the abilities vs other factions regardless of being used in the optimum conditions or not?

    -thorough salvage is questionable

    -flamers are nice, but again you're applying a weapon to a unit that is already overburdened with duties (repair, anti-mining, construction, AT, and now anti garrison and you sacrifice anti-mines/AT)

    -recoup losses, far too little return for cost, OKW is already floating MP, why waste precious MUN on minimal MP return

    -hetzer, far too late, too expensive

    -rocket barrage, inconsistent in damage, although acceptable

    so why take this commander except for the flamer? and 2 sub par abilities?

  • #25
    2 years ago
    comrade_daelincomrade_d… Posts: 2,948

    I didn't say the doctrine is great, and I have used the Hetzer. Also, I did not assume everyone was wrong, I don't know why you would come to that conclusion.

  • #26
    2 years ago
    QuesocitoQuesocito Posts: 128
    edited June 2017

    @comrade_daelin said:
    Considering what people have said about this commander I feel it's designed for specific types of maps; naturally this means that using this commander in other maps makes it useless.

    I think that's the biggest disadvantage of commanders, people expect them to carry a theme yet also be versatile, which isn't always possible.

    really.... then what exactly were you implying here... we're all saying the commander sucks, while you say its designed for specific maps.. its not designed for any map since it is subpar.. we arent "expecting it to carry a theme yet be versatile", we're expecting it to at least work well somewhere.. which it doesnt..

    @comrade_daelin said:
    For Feurersturm specifically, needing a buff raises the question of why: it "needs" a buff in terms of it being sucky in everything except urban maps, but that's like saying Riflemen need a buff against tanks...

    i never said you said the doctrine is great, i said you shouldnt tell us we are wrong for thinking the doctrine needs a buff...

    its sucky on all maps, not only open maps, or should i repeat why it sucks?

  • #27
    2 years ago
    ThatguyThatguy Posts: 41
    edited June 2017

    @Quesocito said:
    -flamers are nice, but again you're applying a weapon to a unit that is already overburdened with duties (repair, anti-mining, construction, AT, and now anti garrison and you sacrifice anti-mines/AT)

    What if we added the flamethrowers to volks squads instead?

  • #28
    2 years ago
    TheLeveler83TheLevele… Posts: 694
    Penals/rifles with flamer were op. Volks with flamers will be op as wel volks can be spammed lots better the penals could.

    So i dont think that will work out very well.
  • #29
    2 years ago
    QuesocitoQuesocito Posts: 128
    edited June 2017

    yeah if we see they removed flamers from riflemen as well...

    any frontline squad seems to be OP if given the chance to produce a flamer, so although i complained about the spio getting the flamer, i dont see any other squad to give it to. unless it is a significantly weaker version of the flamer, to offset the strength of the squad. but then volks already get the flame nade, so a weak flamer wouldnt really have a purpose..

    maybe allow the spio to equip mine detectors and flamers simultaneously? that would at least help reduce the strain on the heavily burdened 300 MP squad..

  • #30
    2 years ago
    comrade_daelincomrade_d… Posts: 2,948
    edited June 2017

    @Quesocito said:
    really.... then what exactly were you implying here... we're all saying the commander sucks, while you say its designed for specific maps.. its not designed for any map since it is subpar.. we arent "expecting it to carry a theme yet be versatile", we're expecting it to at least work well somewhere.. which it doesnt.. i said you shouldnt tell us we are wrong for thinking the doctrine needs a buff...

    I'm implying that commanders should have been designed to work specifically for certain maps in the first place, and they weren't. Naturally there are problems with commanders in certain or even all scenarios. Take a chill pill and stop assuming fingers are pointed at you, they weren't.

    If commanders were designed for certain maps, it would have actually justified making a lot of subvariants of the same commanders to better optimize for map size, player size, terrain and buildings, etc. Instead what we have a small set of recycled abilities, which is the worst of both worlds. Had CA done the former we wouldn't be having this discussion, because there'd be a Firestorm doctrine suitable for open maps an a Firestorm doctrine geared for urban maps. Not a Firestorm doctrine that tries to be good at either, but instead sucks at both. In this particular case Relic simply threw together some leftover game content into a DLC commander.

    Players expect them to carry a theme since that's how they have been designed from the start. A commander that emphasizes armour, a commander that emphasizes artillery, etc. And just because a commander was designed for something does not mean it was designed well for it.
    Expecting certain themes isn't the problem, it's that Relic didn't design this commander well enough to fit that theme...if there ever was one.
    People also have different expectations for this commander so naturally one will want it buff this way while another wants it buffed differently.

    @Quesocito said:
    i said you shouldnt tell us we are wrong for thinking the doctrine needs a buff...

    Did I say you are wrong for thinking the doctrine needs a buff? Did I say the opposite, that it does not need one?
    You better have proof or otherwise just admit you skimmed through and just jumped to conclusions.

  • #31
    2 years ago
    QuesocitoQuesocito Posts: 128
    edited June 2017

    @comrade_daelin
    haha ah man... i specifically reread your post numerous times... since i wasnt sure if you were the delusional kind that thinks everything is fine and nothing should be buffed... but this is what set it off...

    @comrade_daelin said:
    it "needs" a buff in terms of it being sucky in everything except urban maps, but that's like saying Riflemen need a buff against tanks...
    I think that's the biggest disadvantage of commanders, people expect them to carry a theme yet also be versatile, which isn't always possible.

    what do you think you were saying here? since it reads as: "riflemen dont need a buff vs tanks, just like people thinking firestorm needs a buff is wrong...people think firestorm should be versatile... "

    whereas.. we all know firestorm is not as strong as it makes out to be on urban maps, because of that list of weak abilities, namely the flame tanks is useless. i dont know what you keep thinking you are saying, but it is not coming out correctly, or you keep saying other things to make up for your mistakes...

    and your recent post going on about commanders fitting certain maps etc, just further makes it seem like you are saying people are wrong for thinking firestorm needs a buff to fit CERTAIN maps... we arent talking about firestorm working on certain maps

    we want the firetank(and other abilities) to do what it is supposed to.... (muffins words..)

    @SquishyMuffin said:
    Hetzer needs a buff somehow. Make it vet quicker. Make its bursts longer or increase the range. Its turretless so it needs to be good at something in return imo. As an AI vehicle it is a bit hopeless.

    capish comrade?

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.