*

Account

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
June 18, 2024, 08:34:14 am

Login with username, password and session length

Resources

Recent posts

[June 14, 2024, 01:23:36 pm]

[May 28, 2024, 01:28:23 pm]

[March 08, 2024, 12:13:38 am]

[March 08, 2024, 12:12:54 am]

[December 30, 2023, 08:00:58 pm]

[February 04, 2023, 11:46:41 am]

[December 25, 2022, 11:36:26 am]

[December 14, 2022, 12:10:06 am]

[September 22, 2022, 06:57:30 am]

[August 22, 2022, 05:10:35 pm]
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 9   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: [WM] storm 2xmp44 overprice  (Read 44003 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
PonySlaystation Offline
EIR Veteran
Posts: 4136



« Reply #20 on: July 31, 2011, 09:29:15 am »

here comes the lone allied voice...no storms are already terrors on the battlefield.

The Shreck storms are terrors on the battlefield, MP44s on the other hand are so expensive that if a player has them you'll know that he can only afford a fewer amount of units thus it's a good thing. When you play allied, it's like "hey that guy was stupid enough to buy mp44s for his stormies, free win yay!
Logged

Sharks are not monsters Henley, they are cute, cuddly and misunderstood. They love humans. sometimes they love TOO much. They love people so much that sometimes their kisses separate people into two flailing pieces which are consumed by other sharks in a frenzy of peace and joy.
nugnugx Offline
Donator
*
Posts: 4051



« Reply #21 on: July 31, 2011, 10:01:54 am »

plus any suggestion thread nug starts usually involves him being upset that he can't spam something the way he wants to and if said thing gets lowered or buffed then he trololol's it so no

lol if it was me other folks wouldn't say also that mp44 on storms is overpriced
Logged

Jodomar Offline
EIR Veteran
Posts: 734


« Reply #22 on: July 31, 2011, 10:07:41 am »

Ranger smg's went down in price so should storms mp44's. I do think they're overpriced too, and need to be looked at.
Logged
smurfORnot Offline
EIR Veteran
Posts: 4715



« Reply #23 on: July 31, 2011, 10:16:17 am »

well acording to some,falls are stronger and more elite troops than storms are  Roll Eyes
Logged
nugnugx Offline
Donator
*
Posts: 4051



« Reply #24 on: July 31, 2011, 10:17:26 am »

well acording to some,falls are stronger and more elite troops than storms are  Roll Eyes

soldier armor stats don't lie Smurf, and you can get cloak on falls also.  If anything they are on same level with falls being slightly better.



But that don't have anything to do with this topic , and we discussed this earlier, so don't go offtopic with it idk why you brought this up again.
« Last Edit: July 31, 2011, 10:20:47 am by nugnugx » Logged
RikiRude Offline
Donator
*
Posts: 4376



« Reply #25 on: July 31, 2011, 10:29:08 am »

normal storms with out weapon upgrades should be lowered in pool cost, then there should be a separate storm unit that is like 10 pool, that can be upgraded with shrecks and mp44s (which mu should come down for) that way they arent spammed.

but either way in regards to pool costs devs keep saying they have SOMEthing planned to let us use more doctrine infantry.
Logged



Quote from: Killer344
Killer344: "Repent: sory no joke i just had savage diorea"
... or a fat ass cock sucking churchill being stupid
Tymathee Offline
Donator
*
Posts: 9741



« Reply #26 on: July 31, 2011, 11:27:33 am »

One of the major issues here is that storms are in the same doctrine as the tiger, which only has the repair muni cost. So when you weigh that you can have a lot of muni's into storms + 2 tigers there can be some issues regarding relative strength.

I just played against someone the other day who had about 4 mp44 storms and it was a pain playing against him because you never knew where he'd pop up. He took out a vet 2 mortar b4 i even knew it was gone, sappers, atgs, etc and it wasn't until he strayed into a mg bunker that we were able to get rid of him.

so to say mp44 storms aren't terrors is laughable.
Logged

"I want proof!"
"I have proof!"
"Whatever, I'm still right"

Dafuq man, don't ask for proof if you'll refuse it if it's not in your favor, logic fallacy for the bloody win.
nugnugx Offline
Donator
*
Posts: 4051



« Reply #27 on: July 31, 2011, 11:28:24 am »


I just played against someone the other day who had about 4 mp44 storms and it was a pain playing against him because you never knew where he'd pop up. He took out a vet 2 mortar b4 i even knew it was gone, sappers, atgs, etc and it wasn't until he strayed into a mg bunker that we were able to get rid of him.

jeeps ? 

units with high detection?
Logged
Tymathee Offline
Donator
*
Posts: 9741



« Reply #28 on: July 31, 2011, 11:35:40 am »

don't be a smart mouth. they can avoid those things and we were two brits, the only high detection units are recons and they can avoid those easily enough, or kill them with other units to let the storms go freely.

i'm not arguing this anymore, i've stated my case. I see enough of these things do really well to be against a price decrease. We all see what happened after kch price decrease, there are more kch on the field and now you want the same with storms?

the diff between m p44's and thompsons are that 2 mp44s on storms > 4 thompsons on rangers. so to compare the two is ridiculous.
« Last Edit: July 31, 2011, 11:38:04 am by Tymathee » Logged
nugnugx Offline
Donator
*
Posts: 4051



« Reply #29 on: July 31, 2011, 11:37:26 am »

they can avoid those things and we were two brits.

slow moving cloaked storms can avoid high speed moving commando jeep  ? 

also brens do a fine job in uncloaking stuff.
Logged
SaintPauli Offline
EIR Veteran
Posts: 530


« Reply #30 on: July 31, 2011, 11:40:52 am »

MP44 pricing is only half the problem. BAR suppression makes a 150+25MU upgrade on infantry vs. infantry weapons a really bad choice…
Logged
AmPM Offline
Community Mapper
*
Posts: 7978



« Reply #31 on: July 31, 2011, 12:34:55 pm »

the diff between m p44's and thompsons are that 2 mp44s on storms > 4 thompsons on rangers. so to compare the two is ridiculous.

lol wut?

2x MP44 is < 4 SMG on a Ranger squad.

Mp44 is not an issue, if someone wants to sink a proposed 70mu for MP44, 45mu for Bundle, and 25mu for Medkits on a unit (140mu) IT should rape your Mortar squad in the face. It should also kill your unsupported Recon tommies that will instantly knock it down to a 3 man squad.

Learn to play Tym. Stormies with Schreks should be a separate unit, Stormies with MP44/naked should be 6 pool.

FJ have similar HP after Soldier Armor modifiers, and gain an Ambush bonus. They also cost far less.
Logged


.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
nugnugx Offline
Donator
*
Posts: 4051



« Reply #32 on: July 31, 2011, 12:38:38 pm »

Tym seriously?

a 3 man kch looses to ranger with smg and  you say that  storms with 2 mp44 beat rangers?  Roll Eyes
Logged
AmPM Offline
Community Mapper
*
Posts: 7978



« Reply #33 on: July 31, 2011, 12:40:54 pm »

Tym is nicely ignoring the fact that Stormies with MP44 require some good play, a supporting t4, and a ton of resources.

Compare to Rangers with SMGs with a dual t3....

Basically, Tym is failing vs Stormies and wants to cry.

Actually, we should do a comparison. Stormies with Battle Hardened vs Rangers with Oversupplied and choice of second T3.

5 Thompsons vs 2 MP44, go....
Logged
Smokaz Offline
Honoured Member
*
Posts: 11418



« Reply #34 on: July 31, 2011, 01:11:06 pm »

Not only is the comparison incredibly poor because its hard to price the value of the cloak, but right now you dont even need to ensure the destruction of more a single allied at gun to more or less have paid for the  4 x mp44 storm. How hard is it to decrew and thus ensure the destruction of a single at gun with a cloaked storm squad?
« Last Edit: July 31, 2011, 01:12:46 pm by Smokaz » Logged

SlippedHerTheBigOne: big penis puma
SlippedHerTheBigOne: and i have no repairkits
SlippedHerTheBigOne: ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
nugnugx Offline
Donator
*
Posts: 4051



« Reply #35 on: July 31, 2011, 01:18:57 pm »

Quote
Lol, why are you guys comparing elite assault troops with stealthy troops?

It's Tym who started this nonsense.




How hard is it to decrew and thus ensure the destruction of a single at gun with a cloaked storm squad?

so you want to use mp44 squad which costs 150 MU to decrew atgs and then retreat them  because this is their role ?

I can decrew 5 times ammount of atgs and mortars with sniper and live than with mp44 storms and die on 2nd try because there will be inf of some kind waiting.


Quote
hard to price the value of the cloak

Value of cloak comes in manpower already. That's why they cost 300 MP  and not 20 more compared to grens.
« Last Edit: July 31, 2011, 01:23:41 pm by nugnugx » Logged
AmPM Offline
Community Mapper
*
Posts: 7978



« Reply #36 on: July 31, 2011, 01:23:58 pm »

Smokaz, a.bundle nade is all you need to decrew. MP44 is an over priced upgrade. Also, Storms are assault troops, instead of Fireup they get cloak. Both serve the same function, get in and decrew support weapons.

Also cost of cloak + hp is apparently 60mp that is already oasis for.
« Last Edit: July 31, 2011, 01:26:27 pm by AmPM » Logged
Smokaz Offline
Honoured Member
*
Posts: 11418



« Reply #37 on: July 31, 2011, 01:26:05 pm »

You're equally dense as Tym, Nug. My point was that a full 4 mp44 squad already reaches cost effiency by destroying a single At gun, both in manpower and munitions. Maybe people are right to say you shouldn't be here.

Quote
so you want to use mp44 squad which costs 150 MU to decrew atgs and then retreat them  because this is their role ?

Are you saying its very much harder to do it with 2 mp44s? You only need 2 kill two men to make the last guy leave, thats 400 mp down the drain. And Who said anything about retreat? You use the storms until you can use it no more or its bound to die without causing any damage, retreating it.

Quote
I can decrew 5 times ammount of atgs and mortars with sniper than with mp44 storms.

In the same time.. for the same pop? Nay. And a 2 man storm mp44 squad can be incredibly useful for just decrewing atgs.

Quote
Smokaz, a.bundle nade is all you need to decrew. MP44 is an over priced upgrade. Also, Storms are assault troops, instead of Fireup they get cloak. Both serve the same function, get in and decrew support weapons.

Bundles won't hit a moving ATG, nor does it ensure a 1 hit destruction. The 2 mp44 upgrade - when it comes to taking out support teams over time, is equally good.

Not gonna bother arguing further both AMPM and Nug should know better
Logged
nugnugx Offline
Donator
*
Posts: 4051



« Reply #38 on: July 31, 2011, 01:33:19 pm »

You're equally dense as Tym, Nug. My point was that a full 4 mp44 squad already reaches cost effiency by destroying a single At gun, both in manpower and munitions. Maybe people are right to say you shouldn't be here.

So any other squad will 'reach cost of efficiency' if you will kill an atg.You can kill atg with a volk squad, does it mean they reached 10 times their cost efficiency? Sacrificing a 150 mu squad to decrew an atg is not cost efficient. I doubt that players leave their atgs in open field alone, and even if you decrew that atg squad,  you will have hell on your storms in a matter of seconds and you will be forced to retreat them.
I'd rather send a gren squad and have same effect.


Quote
In the same time.. for the same pop? Nay. And a 2 man storm mp44 squad can be incredibly useful for just decrewing atgs.

I want to play the same EIR fairy land as you where it rains with atgs and rivers flow with mortars and everything is undefended.
Logged
AmPM Offline
Community Mapper
*
Posts: 7978



« Reply #39 on: July 31, 2011, 01:38:08 pm »

Smokaz, if the gun is not destroyed you must consider the cost of recreeing. In this case 1/2 a rifle squad. If you have time to kill the gun with MP44s then your enemy has super failed.

According to your logic a sniper that only kills 4 men, forcing 2 decrews before it dies is super efficient.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 9   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

TinyPortal v1.0 beta 4 © Bloc
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.9 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.112 seconds with 35 queries.