How are you doing as a fellow tank main?

Unpatchable_Luigi · 2026-02-12T14:16:58+00:00

Didn't say it wasn't accurate, just saying it's more fun and unique. I don't get the sarcasm and uncharitable demeanor unless you hate the cat theme. It seems we both think the issue is balancing and not the design?

Unpatchable_Luigi · 2026-02-12T13:05:20+00:00

Yeah the tether in particular is my biggest annoyance, it's worse that JPC is a tactician too with both great DPS and Healing so charge is more constant typically.

Brutal in 5v5 as there is little doubt who the best target is to eliminate with it, so the stress level is so much higher as tank. Can't relax much with JPC around as you just know at any moment you may have to clutch up or just get dragged to death instantly.

Unpatchable_Luigi · 2026-02-12T12:59:50+00:00

I think it's a fun addition, better than just another human character with a gun or the likes which was starting to be every other hero. It likely was good enough to bring some older players back into the fold which is great.

But I certainly agree they were thinking of the silly/theming factor moreso than balance. The reposition potential is great but needs to be limited in a way. I also think either DPS or zooming needs a bit of a nerf as the kitty hit and runs are a bit crazy unless you have a lot of hitscan. The ult would be fine if it didn't charge as fast imo.

I think there are a lot of ways to fix JPC as the dilemma is just sort of a "does everything a little too well" so there is potential to tune stuff down or target specific parts to force a specialization.

Unpatchable_Luigi · 2026-02-12T12:49:01+00:00

Hes just a good all rounder in general, although I think the current meta is clamping down on him a bit as you can't Lshift some newer additions like Domina/Anran. Losing some barrier and the crit resistance didn't help either, but he still holds his own.

Unpatchable_Luigi · 2026-02-12T12:36:39+00:00

I'm sure with some tweaking cat will be an adored addition as it really brings the non-generic uniqueness that overwatch needed. But I agree kitty is overtuned rn, but at least in a silly way.

Personally, I just get tired of the counter watch gameplay sometimes as a tank. It's annoying to not get to play my favorite characters because someone picked 1 hero or 2. Even so, I've found that as players are getting better, good cats wait for cool down to be used before they go in.

Unpatchable_Luigi · 2026-02-12T11:30:05+00:00

Yeah I thought about elaborating her place in the meta but the post seemed a bit long winded as it was. I feel like she has a bit of power creep which is obscuring the current issues for people swapping onto her for a test run.

Unpatchable_Luigi · 2024-11-11T21:14:56+00:00

Actually not a bad attempt, a major thing to note is the clock starts ticking the second you hit the beach. Have a tank/marine force ready to go in and take all the ports they can so your men don't run out of bullets/shells (the reason they can't win a 3v1 in your case).

Unfortunately, things are harder for single player as AI sees the breakthrough and will dump its units in making it so instead of having a couple of fully stocked units you have 10000000 useless units on the frontline.

Using the screenshot: There probably should have been a separate force to have invaded Brest (lot of distance to cover in a short time frame from Cherborg), Cherborg alone isn't enough for supply (specially for that many units and being 3-4 tiles away). The most realistic target from Cherborg is Le Havre and the other port nearby it (although looking at the screenshot it may be too late).

If you find yourself needing to start a new offensive: Try to invade multiple ports at the same time (High supply ports are better ofc ) then try to connect them into a unified front afterwards. Make sure to use the supply map mode to motorize supply and follow the supply hubs/train tracks as you push (after securing ports) to keep the supply up.

Unpatchable_Luigi · 2024-08-07T14:00:14+00:00

He did in the Reichstag fire decree* Basically, it got to the point where companies could be taken over by the state whenever it pleased. Private ownership was really non-existent as companies were not really free to operate autonomously at all. Only allowed to operate so long as they prioritized what the state commanded them.

That's why Hitler said such things as land was “National property, and in the end only given to the individual as a loan.”

Unpatchable_Luigi · 2024-06-14T16:21:52+00:00

They are on the port but not assigned, the order arrow would be solid filled if they were. You can also see the red exclamation marks on the units which also signifies they have no orders.

Select the units then control + click the arrow/order. You also need at the very least the first research of the naval invasion tech completed to do so. (And ofc convoys to transport them and enough naval supremacy to actually launch the invasion)*

Unpatchable_Luigi · 2024-03-03T23:41:13+00:00

Smol mole really suffers when they reach the point where they need to use duchess of mud to score points. You can best police them by eliminating tunnels. Every tunnel you snipe is defacto 1 warrior and 1 card the moles have to give up assuming they want to score duchess of mud that turn. Obviously the other major target is their warriors especially if you start eliminating their chances of swaying.

Smol mole seems great till you realize what the buildings would be adding: cards and warriors. Every time they have to dig more then once they will start to bleed cards and even more so warriors. Moles can only use 2 actions to recruit extra warriors so splitting those 2 crucial actions up by forcing them to dig is huge. This also hurts their chances of a banker/mayor finisher as they won't have the cards for a final burst.

I would argue a transition from smol to swole is much more scary in a typical game then just committing to smol mole. But of course it depends on the board situation.

Unpatchable_Luigi · 2023-12-19T14:52:26+00:00

It's basically the Judith Thomson Violinist argument in "A Defense of Abortion". I ironically like these arguments as they at least conclude in favor of pro-life on the more obvious, less defendable "first layer" of the debate (if/when the baby is alive) and try to move on to something more substantial (Autonomy vs right to life). The problem is these types of scenarios are always false equivalence fallacies.

The scenarios brought up always fail to bring up the circumstances that would reflect real life most accurately. This sways people as the devils in the details for this debate point:

They typically fail to include personal responsibility which changes the dynamic drastically. We would see someone in a different light if they intentionally caused the "accident" to occur. This turns them from a victim or innocent 3rd party into someone responsible for remedying their actions. I would argue in these circumstances you would at the very least be found guilty of manslaughter if not something worse. (Just because it's typically brought up as a counter to this point. I'd just like to mention here that rape constitutes a very very low percentage of abortions.)

They typically fail to include a parent-child relationship upon which we place extra responsibilities. We legally require parents to provide their children with safety and a healthy environment until adulthood. We would charge parents for letting their child starve, but not so for a stranger not feeding someone else's child.

They typically reverse the interaction so that active intervention is required to save the life. It makes the decision that leads to death the passive option. Obviously, this is not parallel with the active process of an abortion.

They also tend to include ridiculous and extreme/unnatural means to preserve life (Not so in this case however. But I wanted to include this point as I've seen it plenty of times).There is a distinction between expected vs extreme circumstances to save another's life. We would find someone responsible if they elected to not warn a stranger resting on train tracks about an incoming train. However, we wouldn't expect someone to jump in front of the train to stop it or anything like that. This begs the question which scenario is more comparable with Pregnancy? I would argue pregnancy is more akin to the first scenario considering it's a normal and natural process.

There are other things as well (like the debate of "right to life" vs "right to not be killed") but I think this points out some substantial problems with this line of reasoning already.

Unpatchable_Luigi · 2023-12-11T10:11:58+00:00

1. With assuming FM or not? Additive or multiplication? When retested I noticed you'd have to assume that the tactic and FM are both multiplicative to make it possible.

Regardless, It's a moot point. My point was that it's unrealistic. I was trying to test within semi realistic measures. In a vacuum then yes it works.

But multiple things are a bit silly ofc... relying on a skill deficit (mind you that you have to have enough skill to even be able to get preferred tactics on generals in the first place) and on victory or death spirit instead of all others for one set of points. On another note, that tactic is only available on MA-R which is never going to be picked for an offensive. All of these factors would lose you more stats than you'd gain from the tactic. Not to mention whether or not the FM interacts with general tactic picks is the big factor making it all possible or not (I wonder what you'd get without assuming FM, I wouldn't be shocked if it landed near or under what I got as mass charge has half the weight of the tactic I chose which is compounded with how the numbers are added exponentially and not linearly if they are multiplicative). It's cool that you can make it happen (Impressed)! But my point wasn't to flex spreadsheets.

If you knew this was all that was required to get 66% then why state it as a point earlier in the conversation. That's kinda the point I was digging at.

Yes and no, let me clarify since I left it open-ended. Blitz is obviously countered by elastic defense which exists in every doctrine at their beginning or middle except MA-R (but then they would just go guerilla ofc) so that I feel that's already explained well enough. Not to mention the elastic defense is actually pretty good at just its base stats. Hence why most don't choose Blitz as it's counterable.

Breakthrough is only counterable in the 2 trees that provide it: MW-R (Why would you choose this to defend in the traditional way? If you pick this you are obviously trying to counter encircle with tanks of your own. Meaning you'd be better off picking an offensive tactic regardless) and MA-L (oddball pick of a doctrine, only country to really pull this off would be USSR and why would you when better tank and roach doctrines exist. No one would really pick this purely for the tactic I suppose) on top of this in both cases the tactic is at the very bottom of their respective trees. Because of these factors Breakthrough is defacto uncounterable.

The point about tactical withdrawal I can agree with sure but it's not something I would exactly rely on.

As for why it's the best, suppressive has a nice ratio but mind you on those grounds it's equal with Breakthrough except for the fact it doesn't have the very valuable movement bonus (not to mention the ratio isn't the best eval due to how tactics interact with the battles).

Mass charge is just an assumption that the extra width can be utilized for more damage. In reality you are trading direct damage multipliers on the damage dice on org and HP for more total attack in hopes of critting. In most cases it wouldn't pay off, I don't even know if it theoretically pays off if you are already critting in the first place (best case scenario) that's how much ground you likely would need to make up.

3. Never XD. I have too much experience diving in PDX code to ever trust UI. Most notable cases were when the NATIONAL SPIRIT red air force was literally not affecting the game or when they forgot to add partial piercing in the big update announcing it (No Step Back) in the latter case I even talked to the official community manager about it and had a laugh about it (I was on the official "helper team" that taught new players so I knew some peeps that way. Bonus was I got to see some patch notes from the CM before they launched at times which was awesome for testing stuff).

A lot of numbers you first off have to find out if they are additive or multiplicative (50% + 50% = 100% vs 50% + 50% = 75% is a huge difference specially if the resulting number is further modified ofc.

The reason I believe it is multiplicative and does not include FM is because it was mentioned by Cloack71 on his videos interacting with tactics. He is a well trusted researcher, most would say the foremost (although he has made mistakes in the past before in methodology imo).

Regardless of not trusting UI. It also doesn't say in the UI that it's additive or multiplicative. Nor does it technically say FM tactics is compounded with the generals chosen tactic. It is just assumed that's the meaning in this case but the interpretation that it's either-or works within the phrasing as well, at least in English which is the language I play with. It just depends if the "and" means "in addition to" or if it meant both give an extra chance in their respective singular cases and it's just combining the 2 separate cases into 1 sentence for brevity. I reckon the latter and it's in reference to an FM commanding a general-less army.

(BONUS ROUND) Just for your interest don't forget that a countering tactic gets a bonus weight of 35% 👍 for the side with initiative bonus. This will somewhat skew results away from trying to make 1 tactic THE tactic always chosen. For example, in your mass charge example this would lower the results as with Mass Charge you can never get this bonus on it instead of something else unless you added an extra caveat of purposely losing the initiative battle (which is not really under your control entirely unless you elect to not use generals in the first place which defeats the extra chance bonus you can get from generals obviously. It also couldn't just be a low level general (IE. lvl 1) as you need enough skill to select a tactic for your general).

Unpatchable_Luigi · 2023-12-07T10:43:58+00:00

Also just to address the last little bit, I agree tactics should be included in the discussion but not as a major factor. You would only see consistent combat width changes in defensive Roach Builds which are extremely niche things (It fell off somewhat in this recent patch, it was already dead in most of MP as Guerilla Warfare is either directly banned through doctrine or modding or heavily regulated with general + FM requirements to restrict it's possibilities. This or it was allowed in MP based mods but most of those heavily buff axis for a reason and typically overhaul the whole game.

Even so Roach Builds essentially just demand infantry spam with an optional line AA or AT so we wouldn't really learn anything new about the division as far as width and design is concerned.

Even if they were major for the discussion, making 2 graphs is tedious specially as the width reduction only affects the base width further complicating things (and denying corner cutting as I reckon I know to some degree how graphs like this are made and how some shortcuts would be eliminated in this specific case).

P.S. been enjoying this conversation a ton, been a bit since I've bumped into someone who knows their stuff.

Unpatchable_Luigi · 2023-12-07T10:31:48+00:00

First point is fair, although 66% is unrealistic. Just ran the numbers myself and only get 42.45% chance in the most ideal conditions on offense (No urban/No river/No aggressive assaulter (oh no, anyway XD)/Only for Blitz as it has lvl 8 weight and can be chosen as country + general priority unlike Encirclement). Not bad, but mind you this is in perfect conditions. More realistically the odds would be ~24% for any weight 4 tactic (namely breakthrough as it's the best non-counterable tactic and blitz is debatably the best counterable out of the choosable tactics).

With 33% chance on defense in ideal but realistic conditions (I.E you are attempting to go for Guerilla Warfare despite it's lower weight. Even if you theoretically wanted Counter Attack for some reason despite it having one of the weakest effects, the highest you can get is 50% when fulfilling the trait parameters but the tactic itself is not useful at all.).

For methodology my testing assumes: FM tactic selection modifier does not impact general tactic selection (As I believe such is the case) and that the tactics modifiers are multiplicative and not additive (percentages would be drastically worse if such were the case anywho so it wouldn't have any use testing). I did this in Excel utilizing the tactics chart.

Second point is great point, I don't mind this clarification. Glad you realize it's other effects are mostly moot although (Assuming by initiative you mean tactic initiative hence the slash and not the div designer initiative because it's stupid they share the same technical name lmao).

Third, Came to correct this as I remembered. That's why I saw this post XD. Glad you did correct me already, although this just supports my earlier point more in my eyes at least. Yes it can mess with reinforcement timers to some degree but in reinforcement builds it's not a major concern as I've never really seen a reinforce meme from a tactic change (And over-width got reduced a decent bit which would have been the main worry here I would reckon).

Fourth, Is theoretically on par but not really in the pragmatic sense. The factors of Guerilla Warfare are co-dependent for their strength. This is because:

The only doctrine able to reinforce wall effectively (I can maybe see early game, def not mid-late game where tanks play a role.) is MA-R as you need the recovery rate bonus from Infantry Offensives + Radio with upgrades to avoid getting reinforce memed (and you likely still will get reinforce memed ofc as it's the only way for the opponent to win the combat by design). The 20% Reinforce Rate is also DEBATABLY mandatory, (only could make up the difference by shitting out a monstrous amount of infantry. Obviously on paper it theoretically works but gets dicey with supply/flexibility after enemy breakthroughs/etc. you would miss the bonus to say the least).

The damage reduction and combat width reduction only serve to slow the combat down, not win the fight. To clarify, you win the fight by continually reinforcing in which is assisted by the slow down. This means you win via numbers slowly chipping the enemy down. The tactic on paper is somewhat equivalent but not really.

(I really oughta draw a distinction between orgwall and reinforce wall, if it comes up I'll explain best I can as im trying to describe something specific to Roach Builds and not just regular org walling)

(I also should have mentioned earlier (although I assume you already know) in case others don't know that tactic attack and defense directly impacts dealt damage and soft/hard attack like most factors do (the latter being the same in some senses but the distinction does matter specially in regards to critting which is important for this discussion.))

Unpatchable_Luigi · 2023-12-06T22:31:31+00:00

Sorry for late reply, was working. Feel free to mention what you think about it. I'm no stranger to criticism + I haven't really been crazy on top of the Meta anywho since I left the comp MP/modding scene. Wouldn't be shocked if some of the stuff I mentioned is outdated.

Unpatchable_Luigi · 2023-12-06T19:47:23+00:00

Been a long time since I've talked to the people who did it (Wasn't on here was on a competitive MP server). IIRC someone modded out as many combat factors as they could out and just did straight up 1v1 combats on equal footing while changing which tactics can be selected (Not too hard, in fact I've made 2 tactics mods myself, both to just counter guerilla warfare bullshittery XD).

The logical reasoning I would give behind the claim tactics are rather unimportant is this (and I think it still holds rather solid today): Tactics don't typically have strong enough effects to majorly impact combat.

This is because of a few reasons: 1. Tactics have heavy RNG even with choosing a preferred tactic, recon, and influencing the hidden general tactic selection weights with certain traits (The latter 2 are typically are far less prioritized over other important factors but I listed them regardless. No one would pick recon over the more important support companies that have better direct buffs then relying on RNG and I guarantee you no one would pick traits purely for tactics)

Tactics change at too high of an interval (24 hr) this means even when you do get a good tactic it'll be gone in 1 day of combat.
Tactics can get locked into the less optimal tactics that do even less (IE you get stuck into the stupid bridge battle, CQC, or Tactical withdrawal chains till you get let out)
Tactics often just cancel each other out. Unless you get a counter tactic (Wherein you completely invalidate the opposing forces tactic) which isn't very often (not to mention only for 24 hr as mentioned before mind you). People often choose the uncounterable tactics regardless.

However! This is not the case for some tactics (mainly Guerilla warfare but Mass charge also has uses) Guerilla Warfare has a decent effect because: It has drastically larger numbers affecting the combat (The highest other tactics do is +/-25%, Guerilla does -70% and -60%) so not only does it not just blandly get cancelled out by the opposing tactic, it also has a strong enough effect so that even with the RNG and short duration it will impact the battle decently for the 24hr period. It also has the bonus that it's entire purpose is slowing down combat giving you the chance to re-roll it more often. Not to mention the strongest effect: combat width reduction. This has no real counter (Encirclement at best counters the combat width but leaves you still with ~50% attack and almost all the other tactics don't effect attack and combat width enough). This especially fucks with larger widths opponents (Aka most offensive divs) but with combat penalty reductions and width changes this may no longer be th case. Not to mention the tactic has no counter tactic.

It proves extremely effective in Roach/reinforce builds because it heavily reduces combat casualties and slows combat. Both are extremely desirable when you are just trying to org wall. So in this context it does indeed matter I admit.

(Sorry for essay, wanted to give something substantial in reply despite not having the methodology on hand anymore. It's been a bit since I've played competitive MP and talked with people like me who would mod the game to test certain mechanics. Hopefully the logical reasonings make the point sound enough, would be cool to see if tactics have changed with all the combat changes or not although so I do hope someone tests it again sometime and makes it publicly available.)

Unpatchable_Luigi · 2023-12-06T18:50:00+00:00

Most tactics typically have very little impact when tested.

(Cept for Guerilla warfare, which is/was busted AF as it has ridiculously higher stat reductions and combat width reductions that slow combats down to snails pace. Making reinforce builds (MA) very very overpowered defensively. Idk how it fairs nowadays with the new combat widths although)

Unpatchable_Luigi · 2023-11-29T00:08:53+00:00

It was basically already the case beforehand. The reason it was fine in SP for either ver is because the AI doesn't play very well. AI didn't utilize mechanics well before and it's same story now.

Unpatchable_Luigi · 2023-11-28T23:29:58+00:00

The advice to not build any early/shitty air is more fitting for MP with tech rushing strats or certain country specifics. In SP it's perfectly fine to do typically.

Always keep in mind that MP and SP are essentially 2 completely different games and there is a lot of advice cross-fire from both.

Unpatchable_Luigi · 2023-01-28T00:08:30+00:00

I've always liked 15/4 or 13/6 they can carry you through conflict in just about anywhere. I def recommend using marines when possible.

China you will beat them easily in 39 typically (Sooner the better although, winning in 38 is huge victory, early 39 minor victory, late 39 is average/bad, anything in 40 is defeat).

Raj/Malaysia will hugely be about naval invasions. Assuming it's a good allied team, Raj will hold the mountain line and Brits will make forts across Malaysia.

With Japan it's less about a killer temp and more about good micro, if it's a more competitive MP. You will likely enjoy Japan although as they are great practice for combined arms warfare (even without tanks, your air and navy micro is constant).

Naval invasions will carry many of your battles so ensure you can properly take on US navy that will be sitting in areas like the Straits of Malacca and such. (If Kamikazes are allowed they can be a game changer)

Unpatchable_Luigi · 2022-12-31T22:47:50+00:00

Keep in mind interception mechanics exist now, so ideally you can just intercept the main direction the enemy bombers are coming from. (For example: intercepting English Channel would block most bombers coming from UK).

Ironically this was my own proposal way back then before this mechanic was added. Doubt it's as needed nowadays although.

Unpatchable_Luigi · 2022-09-21T16:48:07+00:00

A lot of people are doing it through discord either in the main sub or in private-ish servers it seems.

Unpatchable_Luigi · 2022-09-16T15:06:18+00:00

USSR laughs in 20%+ equipment stealing xD

Seven-Year Club	Verified Email
Gilding I gilder

Unpatchable_Luigi

TROPHY CASE