yay for less rng for buildings

Building Functionality
Our goal was to improve the player’s capacity to make decisions when using garrisons within the game. To achieve this, we improved the readability of a garrison’s structural integrity, making damage more consistent and in turn making it easier to calculate the risks associated with the use of said garrison. Buildings will be far less prone to being knocked down to single attacks at full health as a result.

YES!

Building Critical System
Removed the random chance for AOE weapons to inflict up to 6x their AOE radius when exploding near a garrison.

YES!

Infantry flamethrower damage modifier vs. garrisons from 1 to 1.6
Mortar damage modifier vs. garrisons from 0.25 to 0.75

YES!

This change enables squads to fire within a 180 degree arc, better enabling them to engage other squads while executing combat maneuvers. Previously, their firing arc was far more restricted which lead to a loss of DPS when ordering squads to move.

YES!

120mm Mortar

Cost from 360 MP to 0.15

YES! YES! YES! YES!

I think something went wrong when copy and pasting the entry about the 120mm


120mm Mortar

Cost from 360 MP to 400 MP
Range from 120 to 100
Scatter ratio from 0.1 to 0.15
Distance scatter max from 14 to 15

RNG not effecting buildings

Tampering with the balanced 120mm mortar

T-34/85s getting a buff:

Yet also having their accuracy nerfed....

But remember, that 120mm mortar is now even more effective at blowing units out of buildings.

But remember, that 120mm mortar is now even more effective at blowing units out of buildings.

Just get it to vet 3 and you get all that sweet range back.

Vet 3 shouldn't be as hard to get anymore if you preserve well, with the changes to how vet is earned increasing vet for attacking vetted units, it means coming back after devastating losses is slightly more achievable.

Along with the balancing of vet boosts overall.

T-34/85s getting a buff:
Yet also having their accuracy nerfed....

well after getting all those buffs it should get an accuracy nerf, to compensate for greater rate of fire it's still pretty accurate and it would be less OP against infantry.

I haven't noticed any difference in the T-34-85, it just wrecks infantry I've found...

I mean AI wise. AT wise it's great.

But remember, that 120mm mortar is now even more effective at blowing units out of buildings.

Excellent advice, eh? Except the precision of the damn thing has been nerfed. You can't expect to destroy the house unless the unit stays there for 5 minutes.

Just get it to vet 3 and you get all that sweet range back.

And wth is the vet going to come from for a unit that now can't hit the broad side of a barn?

Unfortunately this indirectly makes RNades even shitter vs buildings, especially in extreme early game.

Not that the change wasnt absolutely necessary. It certainly was, but now there really is no need for Sov to worry about RNades on garrisons in very early game, whereasntheir own Molotov still automatically causes a a degarrison.

Flamer survival and increased garrison dmg is all well and fine, but it actually benefits Sov far more.

A) Ost infantry relies on armor to equalise small arms combat. Flame completely bypasses that, leaving Ost infantry AND Support units very vulnerable as compared to Sov infantry and Support teams from Pio Flamers.

B) A Maxim in a building is VERY difficult to approach with aPio Flamer, owing to the faster resetup of Maxims within buildings, as compared to MG42 in a garrison vs CE Flamers.

C) Molotov is an automatic garrison emptier, and can in the hands of an adept player, be placed at the exit of a building, so that not only is the unit inside forced to vacate, but especially MG42s have to cook in the flame at the door as well.

I think RNade needs a more consistent dmg vs Garrisoned units. All to often it does jack shit, and Sov just laughs at the Muni expense.

Furthermore, I think Flamers need to be asymmetric, rather than universal as they are now.
Sov can stay as it is, whereas Ost Flamer needs a wider template, but with lower DPS, to account for dealing with a more numerous and spread out Sov unit.

Unfortunately this indirectly makes RNades even shitter vs buildings, especially in extreme early game.

Not that the change wasnt absolutely necessary. It certainly was, but now there really is no need for Sov to worry about RNades on garrisons in very early game, whereasntheir own Molotov still automatically causes a a degarrison.

Flamer survival and increased garrison dmg is all well and fine, but it actually benefits Sov far more.

A) Ost infantry relies on armor to equalise small arms combat. Flame completely bypasses that, leaving Ost infantry AND Support units very vulnerable as compared to Sov infantry and Support teams from Pio Flamers.

B) A Maxim in a building is VERY difficult to approach with aPio Flamer, owing to the faster resetup of Maxims within buildings, as compared to MG42 in a garrison vs CE Flamers.

C) Molotov is an automatic garrison emptier, and can in the hands of an adept player, be placed at the exit of a building, so that not only is the unit inside forced to vacate, but especially MG42s have to cook in the flame at the door as well.

I think RNade needs a more consistent dmg vs Garrisoned units. All to often it does jack shit, and Sov just laughs at the Muni expense.

Furthermore, I think Flamers need to be asymmetric, rather than universal as they are now.
Sov can stay as it is, whereas Ost Flamer needs a wider template, but with lower DPS, to account for dealing with a more numerous and spread out Sov unit.

Hello.

Rifle nades don't necessarily force soviet squads to leave buildings or "degarrison", that's true.

Perhaps it is not necessary though for rifle grenades to have that effect.
After all you can use them from a relatively safe distance and cause damage whereas molotovs force the soviet player to get really close and risk more combat losses.
There are also other circumstances where the rifle nade is superior to molotovs, so I don't quite understand why you want it to be so good against buildings.

Germans also have a mortar available in the no-brainer T1 building and it now works quite well against garrisons.

As for placing the molotov at the door, that's easily avoided by leaving the building through the back door.

I agree that the damage could and should be more consistent.

Eagerly awaiting your further analysis,
J

Kiesuspyotr: Thank you for a civil post!

Ican agree with most of what you say.
BUT, I personally have experienced and seen RNades do too little to Garrisons.
Dat is my primary problem.
I dont expect RNade to force a degarrison while its in the air. I agree that the range is a significant and meaningful consideration.

But we are talking about 6man Sov units in a building.

Lets be serious here, how afraid are Sov of an RNade on a building? Not at all, especially now it wont random collapse it. Comare that to Ost, where you really, seriously, have to gtfo. Also, not all builsings have 2 exits. Infact imo, most dont, especially the smaller ones.

My problem here, is in extremely esrly game, before dedicated counters such as Mortars hit the field. Sov can take a building with even CE and laugh. You can spam RNades at it all day, and still not force it out.

I want some return for my Muni spent on RNade vs early garrisons. No shit, I die a little inside when I RNade a building, look at the hp and model count od the garrison, and see I did jack shit...

Maybe Im targetting them wrong? Anyone got a cheat tip for how to effectively RNade garrisons? Maybe I should aim it next to the building side Sov are firing out of, or something?

riflenades are pretty sad vs. buildings now.. look at it this way, you might kill 2 models out of a 6 man squad which is only 33.3% of the squad of cons whereas a molly will kill an entire 4 man mg42 team unless you vacate.. not sure where the balance is here exactly. maybe a shorter cooldown on rnades would be a fix.