Login

russian armor

Ostheer Tech Restructure

10 Feb 2020, 21:46 PM
#21
avatar of Lago

Posts: 3260

Your proposals would basically revert the previous and currently intended change for OSTs tech structure.


Option A is functionally identical to the tech structure in the new patch. I matched all the costs on all the teching paths. All the costs match.

The current Ostheer tech design currently has a redundant Battle Phase in it. I just reshuffled it to be between T2 and T3 instead of T3 and T4.
10 Feb 2020, 22:03 PM
#22
avatar of Hannibal
Senior Moderator Badge

Posts: 3114 | Subs: 2

jump backJump back to quoted post10 Feb 2020, 21:46 PMLago


Option A is functionally identical to the tech structure in the new patch. I matched all the costs on all the teching paths. All the costs match.

The current Ostheer tech design currently has a redundant Battle Phase in it. I just reshuffled it to be between T2 and T3 instead of T3 and T4.


I just meant that the previous patches basically moved most of the cost from buildings to battle phases.

I assumed that you had a typo in proposal B:
T3 is currently written that it only costs 140 MP, although the total tech cost to T3 also says it would cost 55 FU, which would also go along with keeping T3 timing. This proposal would revert the intended change from end 2018 to allow for easier back teching into T3. I'm not saying that this is good or bad, just wanted to point it out.

EDIT:
I just figured out that at option B the costs are confusing.
For the box at T3, you wrote the building cost is 140 MP, but as I said the FU cost also goes up by 55 FU. You wrote this probably with the locked units until you tech BP3 in mind. However, you then again forgot to add the MP cost from BP3. So the total cost in the T3 box is now a mix. The MP cost represents the total cost up to the T3 building (without BP3), while the FU cost represents the total cost WITH BP3.
10 Feb 2020, 22:05 PM
#23
avatar of Lago

Posts: 3260

I assumed that you had a typo in proposal B:
T3 is currently written that it only costs 140 MP, although the total tech cost to T3 also says it would cost 55 FU, which would also go along with keeping T3 timing. This proposal would revert the intended change from end 2018 to allow for easier back teching into T3. I'm not saying that this is good or bad, just wanted to point it out.


I bundled Battle Phase 3 and T4 together.

In proposal B, Battle Phase 3 is a requirement for medium armour.
10 Feb 2020, 22:08 PM
#24
avatar of Hannibal
Senior Moderator Badge

Posts: 3114 | Subs: 2

jump backJump back to quoted post10 Feb 2020, 22:05 PMLago


I bundled Battle Phase 3 and T4 together.

In proposal B, Battle Phase 3 is a requirement for medium armour.

See my edit, I got slightly confused because of a type in the box.

Yes, you are right then.
10 Feb 2020, 22:30 PM
#25
avatar of Unit G17

Posts: 498

Building upon the B proposal, what if the Stug E becomes a non doctrinal, standard ostheer unit that comes in the new T3? (while it gets replaced by command P4 in the defensive and mechanized doctrines... definitely fits the former, but Tiger + CP4 combo for the latter may be a bit op)
I feel like a Stug G might be a little too strong for the new T3, but a Stug E, with slightly improved AT stats (or ability to switch ammo) would help to fill the ostheer light vehicle gap. I saw the proposal of adding short barrel P4 with reduced health for this role, but visually it would be a bit weird imo, if the same P4 model has less health than regular P4.
10 Feb 2020, 22:47 PM
#26
avatar of Lago

Posts: 3260

Building upon the B proposal, what if the Stug E becomes a non doctrinal, standard ostheer unit that comes in the new T3? (while it gets replaced by command P4 in the defensive and mechanized doctrines... definitely fits the former, but Tiger + CP4 combo for the latter may be a bit op)
I feel like a Stug G might be a little too strong for the new T3, but a Stug E, with slightly improved AT stats (or ability to switch ammo) would help to fill the ostheer light vehicle gap. I saw the proposal of adding short barrel P4 with reduced health for this role, but visually it would be a bit weird imo, if the same P4 model has less health than regular P4.


The tech gap is tunable. Just move fuel between the new BP2 and the new BP3.

You can define exactly how much earlier the StuG-G can be deployed.
13 Feb 2020, 09:52 AM
#27
avatar of Unit G17

Posts: 498

A genuinely good thread that could put the puma and stug E in a more fitting position and help ostheer fight light vehicles better, yet no mod team attention... :(
14 Feb 2020, 00:50 AM
#28
avatar of KiwiBirb

Posts: 789

F for StuG E

It sucks so bad. Compared to Ostwind, it is straight up worse. Comes only 1 minute earlier and yet deals less DPS vs stationary targets, no dps to moving targets without attack ground, and has 80 less health.

Compared to the Scott, all it has is 80 more health and yet it has worse range, no turret, no smoke barrage, and no concealing smoke.

Currently, Ostheer lacks an area denial tool. The StuG E already competes with the Ostwind and Brummbär in its current role. Why not just convert it into a turretless Scott? This would remove it from its current redundant role and fill a gap in Ostheer’s roster.
14 Feb 2020, 08:45 AM
#29
avatar of WAAAGH2000

Posts: 731

Maybe reduce P2 fuel cost to 55 and increase T3 fuel cost to 50?Then P3 and T4 fuel cost bundle to P3 like balance mod?
21 Feb 2020, 17:50 PM
#30
avatar of Lago

Posts: 3260

Maybe reduce P2 fuel cost to 55 and increase T3 fuel cost to 50?Then P3 and T4 fuel cost bundle to P3 like balance mod?


The idea is to make sure all the costs line up, so the timings don't change.

It's not meant to be a big rebalance of Ostheer, so I was careful to keep the price totals the same in order to have minimal effect on the timings.
21 Feb 2020, 21:07 PM
#31
avatar of WAAAGH2000

Posts: 731

jump backJump back to quoted post21 Feb 2020, 17:50 PMLago


The idea is to make sure all the costs line up, so the timings don't change.

It's not meant to be a big rebalance of Ostheer, so I was careful to keep the price totals the same in order to have minimal effect on the timings.

Relic just remove puma tech request in test mod……5 minutes ago……
21 Feb 2020, 22:40 PM
#32
avatar of JibberJabberJobber

Posts: 1614 | Subs: 3


Relic just remove puma tech request in test mod……5 minutes ago……


Rest in peace, my sweet Stug E.. :foreveralone:
22 Feb 2020, 00:20 AM
#33
avatar of Clarity

Posts: 479

Unfortunately while the changes to the Puma in 1.2 are in the right direction the Puma still comes at the earliest around about 11 minutes or so, meaning it still is going to come noticeably later than the T-70 which is still going to dominate heavily. Plus the Puma coming this late also doesn't help at all against USF and UKF light vehicles which are still going to have a large window to operate since they come earlier than the T-70 does.
22 Feb 2020, 01:03 AM
#34
avatar of JibberJabberJobber

Posts: 1614 | Subs: 3

jump backJump back to quoted post22 Feb 2020, 00:20 AMClarity
Unfortunately while the changes to the Puma in 1.2 are in the right direction the Puma still comes at the earliest around about 11 minutes or so, meaning it still is going to come noticeably later than the T-70 which is still going to dominate heavily. Plus the Puma coming this late also doesn't help at all against USF and UKF light vehicles which are still going to have a large window to operate since they come earlier than the T-70 does.


That's the same as it was during the Mobile Defense meta, didn't stop people from using it. Ideally, the Puma should be a comeback tool if you've been forced off by light vehicles for awhile, not something that shuts them down outright. Ostheer doesn't really have a reliable tool for that currently. I think it will be huge in making Ostheer a less risky pick in tourneys.

Just watch some of these matches to see timing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fACbuGma1e8

It's a good change, altough I'd have preferred OP's suggestion. Just hope the doctrine doesn't become overly oppressive again when FHT is combined with Panzer Tactician.
22 Feb 2020, 02:32 AM
#35
avatar of Clarity

Posts: 479



That's the same as it was during the Mobile Defense meta, didn't stop people from using it. Ideally, the Puma should be a comeback tool if you've been forced off by light vehicles for awhile, not something that shuts them down outright. Ostheer doesn't really have a reliable tool for that currently. I think it will be huge in making Ostheer a less risky pick in tourneys.

Just watch some of these matches to see timing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fACbuGma1e8

It's a good change, altough I'd have preferred OP's suggestion. Just hope the doctrine doesn't become overly oppressive again when FHT is combined with Panzer Tactician.


It's just unfortunate that you have to pick a commander to deal with the T-70 while OKW can just build a Puma at or before the T-70 timing currently. Because Mobile Defense sacrifices your late game in a meta where heavies are going to still be stronger than they were before.
22 Feb 2020, 09:00 AM
#36
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1

T-70 power level should simply go down...
22 Feb 2020, 15:17 PM
#37
avatar of Lago

Posts: 3260

That's the same as it was during the Mobile Defense meta, didn't stop people from using it. Ideally, the Puma should be a comeback tool if you've been forced off by light vehicles for awhile, not something that shuts them down outright. Ostheer doesn't really have a reliable tool for that currently. I think it will be huge in making Ostheer a less risky pick in tourneys.

Just watch some of these matches to see timing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fACbuGma1e8

It's a good change, altough I'd have preferred OP's suggestion. Just hope the doctrine doesn't become overly oppressive again when FHT is combined with Panzer Tactician.


FHT, Panzer Tactician and Pumas. There's a definite risk of another Mobidef meta.

The Puma's just too good in Ostheer as it stands: it'll be in every loadout just for the threat of it.

I think the tunable earlier StuG availability in Proposal B is a better solution than bringing back Mobidef as Ostheer's midgame crutch. If they need that sort of solution, they need it nondoctrinally.
22 Feb 2020, 15:41 PM
#38
avatar of JibberJabberJobber

Posts: 1614 | Subs: 3

jump backJump back to quoted post22 Feb 2020, 15:17 PMLago


FHT, Panzer Tactician and Pumas. There's a definite risk of another Mobidef meta.

The Puma's just too good in Ostheer as it stands: it'll be in every loadout just for the threat of it.

I think the tunable earlier StuG availability in Proposal B is a better solution than bringing back Mobidef as Ostheer's midgame crutch. If they need that sort of solution, they need it nondoctrinally.


Well yeah, I'd have to agree it's the better solution, I'll always have Mobile Defense in my loadout again as it stands. :lol:
22 Feb 2020, 15:43 PM
#39
avatar of T.R. Stormjäger

Posts: 3588 | Subs: 3

jump backJump back to quoted post22 Feb 2020, 09:00 AMVipper
T-70 power level should simply go down...


No


jump backJump back to quoted post22 Feb 2020, 15:17 PMLago


FHT, Panzer Tactician and Pumas. There's a definite risk of another Mobidef meta.

The Puma's just too good in Ostheer as it stands: it'll be in every loadout just for the threat of it.

I think the tunable earlier StuG availability in Proposal B is a better solution than bringing back Mobidef as Ostheer's midgame crutch. If they need that sort of solution, they need it nondoctrinally.


Overreacting much?
22 Feb 2020, 15:51 PM
#40
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1

1 user is browsing this thread: 1 guest

Ladders Top 10

  • #
    Steam Alias
    W
    L
    %
    Streak
Data provided by Relic Relic Entertainment

Replay highlight

VS
  • U.S. Forces flag cblanco ★
  • The British Forces flag 보드카 중대
  • Oberkommando West flag VonManteuffel
  • Ostheer flag Heartless Jäger
uploaded by XXxxHeartlessxxXX

Board Info

994 users are online: 1 member and 993 guests
zhcnwps
0 post in the last 24h
8 posts in the last week
37 posts in the last month
Registered members: 49104
Welcome our newest member, zhcnwps
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM