853 replies to this topic

[Dominger]

Picking Soviets is an instant win on infantry war (Desolators , Pyros).

I agree that Soviets are way overpowered in infantry war. Plus they start with an insane amount of conscripts since they're so cheap now.

 

If anything they should have their spies nuclear bomb when killed turned off since yuri has non-invisible spies now.

Allied infantry needs a boost too. I don't know what, but besides Tanya and Siegfried they're infantry sucks compared to Yuri and Soviets.

 

 

 

Picking Soviets is an instant win on infantry war (Desolators , Pyros).

 

Not exactly. HQ's Stalkers are the one unit that can pose a serious threat in Infantry Wars: since they're basically walking artillery, they can outrange your base defenses and thus can shell your base from a safe distance. Additionally, they are usually supported by other Epsilon units, so trying to go after them would be rather unwise. Plus, Stalkers are very, very hard to kill.

 

As for Epsilon in general, their Cloning Vats are an extremely deadly threat, and their Gatling Cannons make assaulting a base with infantry a fool's errand. Granted, the Gatling Cannon's one weakness is their reliance on power, but considering that a smart player would wall in their Bio-Reactors and have them surrounded by Gatling Cannons, you'd be stuck in a Catch-22 situation.

 

Edit: Cloning Vats are disabled in Infantry Wars. Rectified.

 

 

Meh, Stalkers are pretty good but they have low health and they can't hurt infantry at all. They just stun them. Gatling Cannons are the most overpowered base defense it seems in infantry war, with soviets sentry gun second, and allies pillbox third. But imo the base defenses are close enough to being equal.

 

also side note: For infantry war I'm getting stalkers, epsilon elites, Libra, and Malver no matter what yuri faction I play as, Is this bugged for everyone or just me? Or is it suppose to be like this?

Edited by Dominger, 05 January 2014 - 01:41 AM.

[Atomic_Noodles]

I still think HQ is the best course since they're the only Faction which has actual Siege Units in Infantry Wars. The rest have to use more numbers of infantry when rushing towards bases. Stalkers let you hang back far away like normal siege units do in normal matches.

[Graion Dilach]

Mortar Quads are okay for T2 siege.

[Black/Brunez]

I still think HQ is the best course since they're the only Faction which has actual Siege Units in Infantry Wars.

 

Siege Cadres + Siegfried said hello.

[Petya]

Volkov can outrange T1 defenses too.

[Atomic_Noodles]

Totally forgot about Mortar Quads & Siege Cadre's....

[fir3w0rx]

I'll make some balance-suggestions here when I know MO inside-out, front to back, side to side, have used each faction over a thousand times against the best players... in other words... WHEN I BECOME A MO-PRO!

 

Hmmm... 'mo-pro', that's the new title that I just came up with, I coined that term

[Speeder]

Play MOre multiplayer.

[UprisingJC]

I've just got some opinions about the Allied faction and the United States after having played some matches as the U.S and Euro Alliance online and some studies and tests into them.

 

Those are just my opinions and I'm listing them here if you don't mind.

 

 

Comparison between Allied subfactions

 

1.Mid-to-long-range ground units(Siege capability)

Pacific Front > Euro Alliance > U.S

--------------------------------------------

P.F - Hailstorm, Zephyr, Blizzard(Mainly for support purpose)

E.A - Prism Tank, Charon Tank

U.S - Basswave, Tanya IFV

 

 

2.Anti-infantry capability

Pacific Front > Euro Alliance > U.S

--------------------------------------------

P.F - Hailstorm(if you want), Black Eagle(if you want), Blizzard

E.A - Prism Tank, Thor, Siegfried

U.S - Tanya, Tanya IFV, Abrams, Mercury Strike(Building)

 

Both P.F and E.A have units that can deal with a large number of infantries well.

U.S also have Mercury Strike and Tanya IFV that can attack multiple units in one shot, but Mercury Strike needs charge and you can only have 1 Tanya IFV on the battlefield at most. Without Mercury things, U.S sucks at dealing with infantries.

 

Abrams' laser can also kill infantries but they don't cover good distance, which means that infantries are likely to have an opportunity to retaliate.

Basswaves also deals good amount of damage on infantries, but I don't think it's good for this purpose.

 

Both Abrams and basswaves have one thing in common when it comes to dealing with infantries: Their attacks are "one-to-one".

You can only hurt or eliminate one infantry at most in one shot, while other units like Prism tanks and blizzard tanks can attack multiple units in one shot.

Prism tanks, Thors, Blizzard tanks and even hailstorms are units for multiple purposes, but in my opinion, basswave is almost for destroying buildings and maybe some light-armored vehicles only, but the units mentioned above can also destroy light-armored vehicles easily.

 

 

One of the characteristics of the U.S in MO3.0 features precision strikes. So...

1. Is it possible to bring back snipers in skirmish and make them unique to the U.S subfaction? 

E.U and P.F don't need them as they've had excellent tools for the anti-infantry purpose and I think it may help U.S deal with infantries a little bit better and not make it overpowered due to their sluggish rate of fire in MO3.0.

 

The other characteristic is about laser weapons. Tanya and aeroblazes are really amazing, but Mercury strike and warhawks seem to lack some.

I tried using target painters on some vehicles and them shoot them with the Mercury strike, I still can't eliminate most of them, even light-armored ones like an IFV unless I shoot the beam right upon it. 

 

As for warhawks, they feature excellent speed and being able to fire on the move, but the laser weapon seems not that good. They mean not much when facing against subfactions with strong anti-air capability such as China because of their paper-like armor that can't bear too much damage.

 

2.How about enhancing their damage output? I'm not saying that to make them super efficient in damage output, just slight enhancement in it.

 

 

I tried a test: Efficiency in killing infantries with a G.I IFV and a SEAL IFV.

I make both IFVs face in the same orientation and put 3 SEALs in front of each of both and the distance between the the IFV and the SEALs for both pairs are identical.

 

I ordered both IFVs to kill the 2 pairs of the 3 SEALs in front of them simultaneously, and the result was that the SEAL IFV did kill the 3 SEALs faster than the G.I IFV did, but not much difference.

 

When the SEAL IFV had finished killing all the 3 SEALs, the G.I one almost killed the 3rd SEAL(He got over 50% of his hitpoint taken).

The difference in the efficiency of killing infantries between them is not large, but the cost does.

G.I - 120

SEAL - 700

 

Compared with original Yuri's Revenge, the SEAL's rate of fire has been significantly reduced, but:

3.Is it possible to make the difference mentioned above more obvious? Either make G.I IFVs less efficient than how they currently are or enhance the rate of fire of the SEAL IFVs'.

 

 

 

What do you think?

Edited by UprisingJC, 10 January 2014 - 07:52 AM.

[Toveena]

SEAL IFV is very cost-inefficient compared to GI IFV indeed, and warhawk's damage output is a bit disappointing...

    And for Mercury, it's like "I've already spent tons of money,time, and tech to get u built up, u still charging me cash for each strike!?" 

 

    Giff Laser GI to USA, yeah, laser GI~

Edited by Toveena, 09 January 2014 - 08:53 PM.

[Petya]

Mercury Strike can be rather powerful against a player, whose faction relies on much lightly armored vehicles. Against Scorpion Cell, Mercury can serve anti-tank purposes too.

 

About the snipers... Problem with them is that you can get them into locations where they can't be hunted down by nothing, but air units. Also if they return then others may start saying that Soviets also need a sniper infantry and Virus' return to the normal arsenal, so she won't be stolen tech. But I don't know, I see low chance for that to happen.

[FiremariomkiZX 123-451-149]

Mercury Strike can be rather powerful against a player, whose faction relies on much lightly armored vehicles. Against Scorpion Cell, Mercury can serve anti-tank purposes too.

 

About the snipers... Problem with them is that you can get them into locations where they can't be hunted down by nothing, but air units. Also if they return then others may start saying that Soviets also need a sniper infantry and Virus' return to the normal arsenal, so she won't be stolen tech. But I don't know, I see low chance for that to happen.

 

Possibly an offshoot/ancestor to the Archer could work instead of the Virus without stolen tech. After all, it does seem odd that Rashidi would have access to Viruses before they were created... Either way, instead of using the virus's gimmick, the Proto-Archer could have explosive projectiles at the cost of less damage and the worst range. Heck, the current Archer could be turned into a Tier 1 sniper, with much worse capabilities at anti-infantry compared to the others.

 

Allied Snipers would have the greatest range but the lowest armour.

 

For the Soviets, maybe a Sniper that can take out vehicles? Yes, yes, Morales can do this already, but these snipers would have shorter range than the Allied sniper, only take out one foe at a time, and only take out Tier 1 unit drives. Morales, would be able to take out all vehicle drivers with this.

 

Also, making their range long enough that they'd be frightening on high ground but low enough that they can't be abused. Also, crappy rate of fire also helps.

Edited by FiremariomkiZX 123-451-149, 09 January 2014 - 09:51 PM.

[Divine]

No God, no, please no nooooooooooooooo snipers. They'd be op in infantry war, and using infantry as offensive units (stalker) would be pointless. Also, they'd pwn heroes.

[AlmaShade]

The Mercury Strike needs to be buffed a bit. If it costs 750 to fire, it should at least do that much in terms of damage costs, but it struggles to take down even a basic tank.

I say buff the damage, but decrease the radius, so it's more geared toward the role of taking out important targets(not structures, hopefully) rather than just dealing decent damage across a fraction of an army.

 

I'd also like to know how the imminent nerf to the Wolfhound is going to be handled.

[Atomic_Noodles]

No God, no, please no nooooooooooooooo snipers. They'd be op in infantry war, and using infantry as offensive units (stalker) would be pointless. Also, they'd pwn heroes.

 

I was gonna suggest US get a Sniper with a Mercury IFV designator when deployed... but that would pretty much be a hero unit already.

 

The reason they deal so much damage is because by default Sniper's Rifle deals 125 Damage and is 100% (Assuming MO didn't modify the rules) and seeing theres not alot of infantry with more hp than that they are usually guaranteed to get 1-shot.

[Admiral_Pit]

After having some battles, I notice that Psi Corps is almost generally terrible against Thor spam in a sense.  Gatling Tanks die kinda fast and seem to kill them slowly even when in groups, Gehenna's Dybbuk Interceptors get wrecked by grouped Thors while doing little damage, and will be vulnerable to anything for a bit once the ships get shot down, and even Libra and her Clones can't really hold em all off, even with good micro.  Most likely, she'll either run outta room to move or get attacked by another unit (say Siegfried if he's hiding somewhere).  No explanation needed on the Archers/Invaders and their fate against Thors.  And Gatling Cannons?  They can take hits since they're buildings, but they're immobileand can be avoided,, and I don't think their RoF makes em great against heavy armor, at least alone... that and unprotected ones will likely be owned by Prism Tanks.  But the point is I feel that PC may have a bit of a weakness against Thors.  Not sure how Piranhas do against em.  I only know they got longer range, but even then without water... yea.

 

I'm just kinda worried of how things like this may work, though it might be the counter to PC?  But what do I know?

[X1Destroy]

I have 1 question to ask Why do the Warhawks have to use that weak laser against vehicles? Sure it works great against halftrack and infantry, but what about tanks?

It should have use the missile launchers for that purpose.
 

Edited by X1Destroy, 10 January 2014 - 07:21 AM.

[Atomic_Noodles]

I have 1 question to ask Why do the Warhawks have to use that weak laser against vehicles? Sure it works great against halftrack and infantry, but what about tanks?

It should have use the missile launchers for that purpose.
 

 

Then it would just be Wolfhound without Anti-Air Capabilities. Its specifically stated they're Sonic Grenades which aren't effective against Vehicles.

[Protozoan]

Snipers would hail the downfall of PsiCorps in particular and Epsilon in general

[X1Destroy]

Anti-tank sniper weapon for robot tank for maximum OPness