Login

russian armor

SU-76 - A Slight Adjustment

PAGES (9)down
1 Jun 2020, 22:30 PM
#21
avatar of thedarkarmadillo

Posts: 5279



+1. From my understanding Vipper is correct here. rotation rates above 32 is what gave us the M10. One snare or not, crushing a squad with an AT vehicle imo is incredibly stupid and should be avoided.

With 70/35 armour and 400hp AND no turret I don't see anyone risking losing their SU76 to crush infantry of it means a 222 or luchs could beat its ass apart. If they want to be balls deep in the enemy to obliterate their infantry why not save some fuel and just get a T70 like now?
1 Jun 2020, 22:34 PM
#22
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1


With 70/35 armour and 400hp AND no turret I don't see anyone risking losing their SU76 to crush infantry of it means a 222 or luchs could beat its ass apart. If they want to be balls deep in the enemy to obliterate their infantry why not save some fuel and just get a T70 like now?

Any reason why it should have crush human in the first place?
1 Jun 2020, 22:38 PM
#23
avatar of Baba

Posts: 600

no, the crushing and pushing mechanics are retarded and often nonfunctional. inconsistent
1 Jun 2020, 23:13 PM
#24
avatar of Kasarov
Senior Modmaker Badge

Posts: 422 | Subs: 2

You guys realize that SU-76 does not have crush like medium tanks, right? It literally can't run infantry over because the crush setting it has in its code isn't high enough.
1 Jun 2020, 23:35 PM
#26
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1

You guys realize that SU-76 does not have crush like medium tanks, right? It literally can't run infantry over because the crush setting it has in its code isn't high enough.

Crush humans and light/medium/heavy crush are different properties
1 Jun 2020, 23:42 PM
#27
avatar of Kasarov
Senior Modmaker Badge

Posts: 422 | Subs: 2

Guess I was wrong :V

but the whole infantry crush thing is still a huge strawman argument and is not practical due to its subpar durability. I'm sure everyone is fine with turning it off if it is a problem

The big picture is that the unit needs mobility buffs, but you guys (Vipper etc) are making it out to be the next M10 or the next Cromwell, which is completely against the spirit of the changes and is clearly not intentional and completely fixable.

Edits to remove references to invissed posts
2 Jun 2020, 00:09 AM
#31
avatar of T.R. Stormjäger

Posts: 3588 | Subs: 3

jump backJump back to quoted post1 Jun 2020, 19:05 PMVipper

Lets have another unit that crushes infatry like crazy.


Like the T34/76 that's only 15 fuel more expensive?
2 Jun 2020, 01:33 AM
#32
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1

Guess I was wrong :V

but the whole infantry crush thing is still a huge strawman argument and is not practical due to its subpar durability. I'm sure everyone is fine with turning it off if it is a problem

The big picture is that the unit needs mobility buffs, but you guys (Vipper etc) are making it out to be the next M10 or the next Cromwell, which is completely against the spirit of the changes and is clearly not intentional and completely fixable.

Edits to remove references to invissed posts

Lets stick to what I actually posted and lets stop following a specific user down the rabbit hole:

Increasing the mobility of SU-76 to the level suggested will make able to crush infatry more efficiently.

The unit is "light" vehicle and light vehicles generally do not have crush human.

For these reason I have suggested to removed crush human a something that should not be enabled in the first place for this unit.

And actually at least two other users have already have agreed with my point.


Like the T34/76 that's only 15 fuel more expensive?

Is there point for in that question or do simply like to disagree with me?

In your opinion should SU-76 be able to crush humans and if so be effective at it?
2 Jun 2020, 01:37 AM
#33
avatar of SuperHansFan

Posts: 833

I feel like you're missing the historical role of the unit mirage

It's a light tank with a field gun bolted on top, it shouldn't be a mobile go-cart zooming around. Obviously the game is not a sim but it still takes historical roles into account (eg commandos)

Any changes should be balanced around the main gun and price (8pop is already crazy low, you can build two for every firefly)

2 Jun 2020, 01:44 AM
#34
avatar of Mazianni

Posts: 785

Please just reduce the barrage recharge time.

It comes from a time when the barrage was free; there's no reason why it needs to be so high now, 3x higher than the ZIS-3.
2 Jun 2020, 02:27 AM
#35
avatar of SkysTheLimit

Posts: 3423 | Subs: 1


One snare or not, crushing a squad with an AT vehicle imo is incredibly stupid and should be avoided.

Imo the stupid thing would be trying to crush with it. Not only the one snare, but as an assault gun you're probably gonna be pointing your gun in the wrong direction should something show up

jump backJump back to quoted post1 Jun 2020, 23:35 PMVipper

Crush humans and light/medium/heavy crush are different properties

If we can remove human crush with a simple toggle than just do it? Why let that dictate whether or not we can buff it's rotation?

I totally agree with you it shouldn't have crush. I just think it's not a good idea to crush with it anyway and I like the rotation rate buff for every other part of the units performance
2 Jun 2020, 02:43 AM
#36
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1


...
If we can remove human crush with a simple toggle than just do it? Why let that dictate whether or not we can buff it's rotation?
I totally agree with you it shouldn't have crush.

It can easily be changed and that is all I have said so far. There is simply a particular user who likes to turn everything into a drama.


I just think it's not a good idea to crush with it anyway and I like the rotation rate buff for every other part of the units performance
2 Jun 2020, 02:52 AM
#37
avatar of Selvy289

Posts: 366

I dont see a reason why the human crush could just be changed to false so it can keep medium crush. Like no one will miss it.

Besides that, I would prefer faster cool down on the barrage and better rotation more than speed.

I mean, its not like new patches are tested before released anyway so adjustments could be made.
2 Jun 2020, 04:04 AM
#38
avatar of SkysTheLimit

Posts: 3423 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post2 Jun 2020, 02:43 AMVipper

It can easily be changed and that is all I have said so far

Yeah my mistake that was news to me. Didn't even realize they could do that

Has any unit ever had that changed before? Just curious, I remember a couple of rotation changes for other units because of crushing (cromwell i believe?), but don't remember this feature being mentioned

Do you think the buffs are okay if human crush is removed?
2 Jun 2020, 04:57 AM
#39
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1


Yeah my mistake that was news to me. Didn't even realize they could do that

Has any unit ever had that changed before? Just curious, I remember a couple of rotation changes for other units because of crushing (cromwell i believe?), but don't remember this feature being mentioned

Both T-70 and Valentine could crush and it was removed.


Do you think the buffs are okay if human crush is removed?

Not really.

The suggestions are far from "a slight adjustment" and it changes the role of the vehicles to "Kiter".

Now if one actually want to turn the unit into a "kiter" one simply can not leave the gun with such a long range, accuracy and penetration and one has to redesign the gun to be more similar to that of Puma with low accuracy/penetration fire that significantly improves in closer ranges.

But is see no reason for a change in role.

The unit has become less attractive for a number of reason that has little to do with performance of the unit like:
Most unit it can counter can also be countered by T-70 early and SU-85 later
T1 provides no tech AT in the form of PTRS/AT satcel
T2 become cheaper and easier to back tech
T4 become far more attractive since it has access to all doctrinal tank and has a bonus to conscript.
Generally speaking most tech/powerful units have been accessible earlier leaving little room for "transition units" to pay up for their investment.

The unit has great ROF/Accuracy/Penetration and it if remember correctly it has quite good TTK vs meduims tanks,as for the Barrage it is superior to that of Zis with more shell more damage and range with veterancy.

What I would try would probably be the following:
Increase XP value which is very low and allow the unit to vet very fast
Remove tracking it can be used to selfspot for barrage
Remove the vet bonus damage to barrage, there is no reason to be more lethal than zis
Maybe increase acceleration to 2.8-3 and rotation to 32 to become a bit more responsive
Maybe lower power level making it cheaper (60 fuel?) while lowering far penetration accuracy
Increase armor so that it less prone to attack from 222
Replace accuracy buff with an HP

Barrage:
Either move it vet 1 and make it free
or
Offer a munition discount for every vet level achieved

Other changes in the faction so that more reason to build it:
Make some of the specialized vehicles available without the T4 like the KV-8 so that has the option to go KV-8s/SU-76 combo. (KV-8 might need to have power level reduced becoming cheaper and less powerful)
Revert the changes to T2 fuel cost so the back teching is less attractive, add a tech cost to PTRS/AT satchels and buff other part of the faction.

Imo the unit currently performs cost efficiently and the problem has to do more that there is little reason to built since there are better units out there like the T-70/SU-85.
2 Jun 2020, 05:07 AM
#40
avatar of SkysTheLimit

Posts: 3423 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post2 Jun 2020, 04:57 AMVipper

What I would try would probably be the following:
Increase XP value which is very low and allow the unit to vet very fast
Remove tracking it can be used to selfspot for barrage
Remove the vet bonus damage to barrage, there is no reason to be more lethal than zis
Maybe increase acceleration to 2.8-3 to become a bit more responsive
Maybe lower power level making it cheaper (60 fuel?) while lowering far penetration accuracy
Increase armor so that it less prone to attack from 222
Replace accuracy buff with an HP


I like the armor and accell changes. Also like the barrage discount per vet level idea

The rotation rate change i liked more than the speed anyway, also to help with responsiveness
PAGES (9)down
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

927 users are online: 2 members and 925 guests
Brick Top, skemshead
1 post in the last 24h
9 posts in the last week
27 posts in the last month
Registered members: 50007
Welcome our newest member, Helzer96
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM