Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1
Then why the thread in the first place if you don't want to change it, but want to change it, but know it doesn't need changes, but it needs to be changed?
Doesn't seem you know what you want at all.
Posts: 1220 | Subs: 1
Posts: 2458 | Subs: 1
The centaur is the UKF AA tank with a cost of 320/100. Although that unit is good recently I find less and less reason to build it.
It AA,AI is good and even its anti vehicle performance (vs light armored target) is decent for an AA unit (obviously it no much for the PzIV).
The main issue is the current performance of Cromwell. For 40MP/10FU more one has access to the Cromwell that although having inferior AI it also comes with AT.
So unless AA is specifically need I would rather build a Cromwell.
Imo the solution to this issue is the lower the power level of Centaur to around 280-300 mp 80-90 fuel by reducing both price and performance. One might need to increase build time so it more difficult to rush.
The change will make the unit a better alternative to Cromwell for AI while also allow UKF to field a cheaper AA unit.
Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1
Seems like a good idea. As you said at the moment building the Centaur is basically only a good idea if you desperately need AA. Cromwell only comes a few seconds later and is the better overall tank with it's mobility.
Posts: 1116 | Subs: 1
Seems like a good idea. As you said at the moment building the Centaur is basically only a good idea if you desperately need AA. Cromwell only comes a few seconds later and is the better overall tank with it's mobility.
Posts: 8154 | Subs: 2
I don't have the same feeling.
Centaur is in my opinion in a decent spot, at least decent enough that it does not need much attention at the moment. Power level compared to Ostwind is decent.
Maybe some slight alterations would be okay, but I think fiddling with it at the moment would cause more harm than good and probably suck up a lot of time.
Posts: 4474
If a unit is underperforming then it gets buffed. There is no logic whatsoever to nerfing and making it 20mp and 10-20 fuel cheaper.no it actually works better this way for a lot of stuff as it gives them a new role, look at penals they increased the price but the performance too giving them new roles , etc
Katitof-2018
Posts: 3166 | Subs: 6
If a unit is underperforming then it gets buffed. There is no llogic whatsoever to nerfing and making it 20mp and 10-20 fuel cheaper.
Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1
Changing a unit's role or place within the roster (timing etc.) and adjusting the cost and the performance accordingly is a perfectly fine way to make units or abilities more distinct or useful. It has been done quite a bit in the past with units like Assault Engineers or Panzerfusiliers. And for example in hindsight I wonder if it wouldn't have been better to "nerf" the Ostwind into a cheaper intermediate anti-light vehicle that might've really helped Ostheer against LVs, rather than buffing its performance into a 100 fuel AI vehicle.
Not that I really agree that the Centaur needs this. I think it's fine currently and that it's actually the Cromwell that could probably use a 10 fuel increase with its new AI performance to help make the Centaur stand out a bit more. Definitely not a priority.
Posts: 3588 | Subs: 3
Changing a unit's role or place within the roster (timing etc.) and adjusting the cost and the performance accordingly is a perfectly good way to make units or abilities more distinct or useful, rather than just outright buffing or nerfing them. It has been done quite a bit in the past with units like Assault Engineers or Panzerfusiliers. And for example in hindsight I wonder if it wouldn't have been better to "nerf" the Ostwind into a cheaper intermediate anti-light vehicle that might've really helped Ostheer against LVs, rather than buffing its performance into a 100 fuel AI vehicle.
Not that I really agree that the Centaur needs this. I think it's fine currently and that it's actually the Cromwell that could probably use a 10 fuel increase with its new AI performance to help make the Centaur stand out a bit more. Definitely not a priority.
Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1
It all depends on what kind of stats you will be adjusting. Talking about "power level" is too broad.
What i can imagine out of a cheaper Centaur is a 560 HP vehicle with (MAYBE) a bit less mobility. I think the current offensive performance is fine so that leaves you really small room to adjust the unit.
Posts: 3423 | Subs: 1
How do we call lowering stats of a unit?
Posts: 177
Posts: 4183 | Subs: 4
Posts: 270 | Subs: 1
Posts: 3260
Posts: 1515
The Centaur is much better against infantry than the Cromwell. It's a good unit that'd be very powerful in any other faction.
If the AEC had a similar penetration profile to the Puma, UKF would have the mobile AT to support the Centaur.
If UKF had a mortar, it'd be able to go for team weapon builds without getting hard countered and support the Centaur with 6-pounders.
It's a good unit hamstrung by being in an incomplete faction.
Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8
no it actually works better this way for a lot of stuff as it gives them a new role, look at penals they increased the price but the performance too giving them new roles , etc
if the objective is to give alternative and not min maxing 2 units shifting role is better
Maybe it's 'cause the Axis players aren't a bunch of forum crybabies, and they keep their cool and fight the uphill battle, unlike some of their "allied" counterparts.
Posts: 3588 | Subs: 3
 |
|
|
49 | ||
 |
|
|
24 | ||
 |
|
|
14 | ||
 |
|
|
6 | ||
|
|
|
|
4 | ||
 |
|
|
176 | ||
|
|
|
|
12 | ||
 |
|
|
6 | ||
 |
|
|
5 | ||
|
|
|
|
4 |
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
