Lower the price of the Stuka to foot or buff it

If it becomes easier to use its rockets will need to be toned down somewhat. Cuz when it hits it really hits currently.

Stuka is already easy to use and the most accurate to fire at targets. It's not in need of buff it has a very specific use. It can kill team weapons far better than the suppression of the werfer and the firepower of the Katy.

Unlike the Katyusha and the Panzerwerfer, if you miss with the Stuka, then you will do 0 damage. At least with the Katyusha and Panzerwerfer the margin of error is smaller since you're more likely to hit something. Furthermore, I'm not asking for it to be that much easier; just knowing the spacing between rockets doesn't it make it so much easier to use. It is still just as easy to aim too far up or too far to the side, only now you know where the rockets land in the creeping barrage.

Ah yes. A rank 4000 guy who didn't play axis in ages ( and never had a match as OKW ) tells others to git gut.

I don't know what your Rank is, but I have no doubt your more of a scrub noob who doesn't understand the game than I am.

The idea was to give it circles instead of a line target symbol. (Wow, a great buff). The proposal makes sense as it will lead to less frustration using it. Are people criticizing it really serious? Many matches in recent tourneys (especially 2v2) showed specifically that Stuka scores many fewer kills than other rocket arty (which says a lot, especially if you put it against the background of smaller axis squads). A lot of those misses were because of the spaces and "strange" damage patterns when targeting buildings, infantry, armour within the line of rockets.

Response #1: The OKW rocket artillery requires more micro to be effective due to how it works that's what makes it unique. Good micro will ensure you get good hits along the line in which you are firing it. The mice consuming is a given. Its harder to use but has the most consistently amongst all of the rocket artillery which is more unpredictable in nature of their design.

I specifically don't agree with the highlighted fragment. I think it used to be like that in the past when the unit was overperforming.

Its a creeping barrage and will follow the path you assign to it. If you want the katushya and werfer to be more accurate you will need to get closer to get a more accurate shot similar to the stuka. This seems more like a learn to play issue than anything else. Also, remember there Katushya at VET 1 has a similar creeping barrage effect which is rather lackluster compared to the Stuka and should receive some attention compared to the Stuka in my opinion.

You are wrong again. Katusha can pretty much freely bombard retreat points and score a lot of kills max range. It is especially easy as it denies the area for a few good seconds and the player does not need to time it that well. With stuka you not only have to time it better but also predict where the rockets forming the line will be after time spaces between them as they don't fall at the same time but create a line with delays between them. Much more difficult to use effectively. Also the Stuka has lower range than katusha.

Response Regarding OKW Playtime: Just because I haven't played it in a month does not mean I have forgotten how it functions. The Stuka still functions similarly to how it did when it first came out the only difference being is that the damage output has been altered over time due to the nature of balance. Also, there haven't been any major balance changes to the Stuka in particular in the past month making any difference than it was when I last played it. In addition, consider that you could always mess around with the rocket arty and etc in offline custom matches with Ai which I like to do from time to time that will not show up in the leaderboards because it's not a ranked match.You present nothing more than a strawman in this situation.

I am against people not playing the faction discussing such factions balance. I believe you should only be allowed to comment stuff like this only if you have a roughly similar number of games with all factions. I believe you are simply wrong here.

The idea was to give it circles instead of a line target symbol. (Wow, a great buff). The proposal makes sense as it will lead to less frustration using it. Are people criticizing it really serious? Many matches in recent tourneys (especially 2v2) showed specifically that Stuka scores many fewer kills than other rocket arty (which says a lot, especially if you put it against the background of smaller axis squads). A lot of those misses were because of the spaces and "strange" damage patterns when targeting buildings, infantry, armour within the line of rockets.

Not sure if people were even criticizing the idea to change the target reticule to "circles", but I'll address this one quickly because it indeed doesn't make sense and would actually make things worse (the current in-game targeting indicator may not be perfect, but it is pretty accurate nonetheless).

I guess a lot of frustration comes from the fact that people don't know how scatter works for the Walking Stuka, or in other words, where to expect the rockets to land.

To make it short: each rocket has a 8 x 8 m square where it can land in, regardless of distance or orientation (due to the absence of range-dependent scatter), with all 6 squares forming a 48 x 8 m rectangle (see graph below for clarity).



The 'center point' of this rectangle (or the pivot the indicator rotates around) lies in the middle of the 3rd square, so the last rocket will actually impact a bit further from the center point than the first. Apart from this, each rocket will always land in its respective square, not anywhere else, meaning there are no gaps or anything such where rockets could never impact.
The actual point of impact in each square is of course totally random, so two projectiles can, at best, land right next to each other or, at worst, up to ~9 m apart - this is where the perceived gaps in the impact distribution arises from.

Now, as a TLDR, what does this all mean?

• The rectangular indicator is already a pretty good representation of the rocket impact pattern, and the only way to improve it would be to give it the actual dimensions of the in-game scatter box (48 x 8 m).
  
  
• There's no real secret to placing the barrage, apart from knowing the dimension of the scatter box and lining up the ability accordingly (including all the guesswork of where the target will have moved to by the time the rockets arrive, of course).
  
  
• There is, however, the possibility to either maximize the damage output or reduce the chance of dealing no damage at all to a given target, depending how the reticule is placed:
  
  To maximize damage output, the target should be placed right in between two adjacent squares. This way there is the (rather small) chance of two rockets impacting right next to the target, but the odds to miss completely are also highest.
  
  On the other hand, if the target sits right in the center of any square, chances to completely miss are rather small, leading to more consistent damage output on average.
  
  

A very informative post

Wow, You rock. A great explanation, thanks. I didn't know any of that. Maybe those squares could help a bit. I didn't know about the scatter inside the boxes.

To maximize damage output, the target should be placed right in between two adjacent squares. This way there is the (rather small) chance of two rockets impacting right next to the target, but the odds to miss completely are also highest.

On the other hand, if the target sits right in the center of any square, chances to completely miss are rather small, leading to more consistent damage output on average.

Damn, I always had the feeling that placing the barrage right on top of your main target (for example clicking directly on an enemy MG leads to less damage and wipes. Now I know why, thank you!


Apart from that, I remember that some pro players had the rule of thumb that the first rocket will approximately impact on the first arrow of the overlay. Not sure if that is true, but maybe that helps some people as well as it is rather easy to follow if you want to hit two distant targets at once (which the Stuka is perfect for)

...but that means there could be some dots added to show the centres of those squares. It would be helpful imo and wouldn't really buff the unit. Just indicate where the rockets are targeted - this would make the gameplay experience better even if they don't exactly hit the points (such rng is already sth players are used to).

I am against people not playing the faction discussing such factions balance. I believe you should only be allowed to comment stuff like this only if you have a roughly similar number of games with all factions.

This would disqualify me from commenting on anything but soviets.

...but that means there could be some dots added to show the centres of those squares. It would be helpful imo and wouldn't really buff the unit. Just indicate where the rockets are targeted - this would make the gameplay experience better even if they don't exactly hit the points (such rng is already sth players are used to).

That would make it OP and take any learning curve away. Last I checked no other barrage tells you exactly where the shots will land. Not even the single shot b4 says "it's going to hit here fam. Put the thing there for your guaranteed wipe" because that would be bullshit.

I am against people not playing the faction discussing such factions balance. I believe you should only be allowed to comment stuff like this only if you have a roughly similar number of games with all factions. I believe you are simply wrong here.

You are becoming a authoratarian entitled elitist. This line of thinking hurts the balance discussions rather then help the discussions. You will go from 100's or 1000's of ideas and perceptions to only a handfull.

With you being 1 of the 5 its already at 20% bad ideas. Not a encouraging prospect. So stop saying such nonsense.

That would make it OP and take any learning curve away. Last I checked no other barrage tells you exactly where the shots will land. Not even the single shot b4 says "it's going to hit here fam. Put the thing there for your guaranteed wipe" because that would be bullshit.

This is honestly completly wrong examples you are giving. Comparing to other arty units to stuka is pointless.

Other rocket arty all works the same way = if you are closer, you are deadlier. If you shoot from close\mid distance you can garantee that your shots will count. This is the learning curve for other arty units, possitioning and timings when to shoot.

B4 is a RNG dice roll meme gun, which shouldnt be in the game as it is in a first place.

Artificial learning curve is stupid concept. I can start custom game with cheatmode, shoot it dozens of times, see on which arrows first rocket lands, see its pattern and use it afterwards.

Stuka learning curve is prediction and timings. Its salvo markers are just an unintuitive and non-userfriendly bullcorn, which wasnt even intented as a balance feature and learning curve I garantee.

This would disqualify me from commenting on anything but soviets.

And that would actually be sad So must correct myself and say that it was a bad idea.

Edit: but U really have no ranked matches with other factions? I don't think they should people discussing balance have to have current rank on every faction but just a decent number of games with all factions.

That would make it OP and take any learning curve away. Last I checked no other barrage tells you exactly where the shots will land. Not even the single shot b4 says "it's going to hit here fam. Put the thing there for your guaranteed wipe" because that would be bullshit.

I guess the dots would only show the aim direction, the rocket would land somewhere around it decided by rng.

You are becoming a authoratarian entitled elitist. This line of thinking hurts the balance discussions rather then help the discussions. You will go from 100's or 1000's of ideas and perceptions to only a handfull.

With you being 1 of the 5 its already at 20% bad ideas. Not a encouraging prospect. So stop saying such nonsense.

Have You read some of CODGUY ideas?

This is honestly completly wrong examples you are giving. Comparing to other arty units to stuka is pointless.

Other rocket arty all works the same way = if you are closer, you are deadlier. If you shoot from close\mid distance you can garantee that your shots will count. This is the learning curve for other arty units, possitioning and timings when to shoot.

B4 is a RNG dice roll meme gun, which shouldnt be in the game as it is in a first place.

Artificial learning curve is stupid concept. I can start custom game with cheatmode, shoot it dozens of times, see on which arrows first rocket lands, see its pattern and use it afterwards.

Stuka learning curve is prediction and timings. Its salvo markers are just an unintuitive and non-userfriendly bullcorn, which wasnt even intented as a balance feature and learning curve I garantee.

. The advantage of not having more scatter at range is offset by the disadvantage of not getting more accurate up close. That's a very reasonable trade off that already makes the Stuka extremely consistent compared to absolutely all other indirect fire in the game. No matter where you are shooting you know almost exactly where your rockets will hit however predictably works both ways.

You don't need to go into cheat mod to learn how to use the Stuka. Just paying attention when playing is enough.
Having markers to show exactly where the nuclear wipes will be is absolutely an awful idea from a counter play perspective and would take an already easy to use team weapon hard counter even easier.

The marker is a strip. If you've fired it twice you know roughly where in that strip the rockets will land and can aim according. We don't need to lower the skill floor even further, if we do that were going to need a backhoe.

And that would actually be sad So must correct myself and say that it was a bad idea.

Edit: but U really have no ranked matches with other factions? I don't think they should people discussing balance have to have current rank on every faction but just a decent number of games with all factions.

A) You do know custom games exist and are often of higher rank than competitive since people are more relaxed and therefore play better
B) You don't need to have 200 games with all factions to be able to say what needs what. By that logics, if I have 20 games with all factions, I am a better at this game than I currently am with many more hours.

That line of thinking is elitist bull****. You play opposing factions to learn their weaknesses and then you pick a faction you like playing. If you like to play every faction... kudos for you. Does that make you more of an expert? Never.
One scenario where that would come to effect is if all of your games are Allies vs Allies or Axis vs Axis (pure custom), then you would not really be able to comment on the opposing side. If you play Allies, you will play against Axis. If you play enough games you will come to understand the strongest points of Axis players, even more so if you play against better players that can utilize the faction strengths to the fullest. You will be able to see the weak points, but less so than the strong points. The best way to see the weak points is to play the faction. That's it. You don't need to play all factions 200 times to see what's what. I could switch to playing only OST or OKW and it would take me about 10 games (which is the competitive minimum for rank) to get the hang of them as I have played plenty of games against them and I know what works vs USF or UKF. That is, what I, when playing as USF or UKF will curse the most when the enemy fields.

All in all, stop with the elitist BS and focus on the facts, not feelings.


P.S. what has CODGUY have to do with you being an authoritarian elitist? CODGUY has his own issues to deal with.

A) You do know custom games exist and are often of higher rank than competitive since people are more relaxed and therefore play better

The thing is that anyone can claim that he plays custom games ( vs. high rank players ) , since there is no tracking of them.

Also I doubt your claim of custom games often having higher ranked / better players than competitive matches

And playing ranked is also different to custom matches, the difference in ranks is often vast, people know which map is going to be played and adapt their loadout to it, after a few matches on the same map against the same people you usually know which strategy they will puruse, 90% of all custom matches utilize Mods and / or change the VP value,there are a lot of broken maps being played, etc.

By that logics, if I have 20 games with all factions, I am a better at this game than I currently am with many more hours.

You won't be better, but you will be less biased if you play each faction about equally.

( not saying that every person who only plays one side is biased, but a lot of them are )

That line of thinking is elitist bull****.

Encouraging other people to play other factions before taking part in balance discussions =/= elitist bull****

You play opposing factions to learn their weaknesses and then you pick a faction you like playing

This is not Pokemon. You don't pick one faction and stick with it till the end of time.
What I do for instance is switching every 2 to 4 days ( unless the search ratio is 90/10, then I usually will switch to the 10% side )

If you like to play every faction... kudos for you. Does that make you more of an expert? Never.

It makes him at least less biased. Also I have seen far too much people already who only play one faction ( or have faction X played the last time Y months ago ) and then claim that Unit Z from faction X is capable of doing something it isn't capable of doing since at least Y months. This kind of stuff could be prevented if everyone would play all factions now and then.

And that would actually be sad So must correct myself and say that it was a bad idea.

Edit: but U really have no ranked matches with other factions? I don't think they should people discussing balance have to have current rank on every faction but just a decent number of games with all factions.

I have played a fair number of matches across various game modes with all factions. However, I do not "have a roughly similar number of games with all factions." I have twice the number of matches as USSR as I do my second most played faction-ostheer, and substantially more games as ostheer then my least played faction-U.K.

Everyone here has an opinion, and valid/justified or not they have a right to share that opinion in a civil manner.


That said, I can understand your annoyance with some of the posters.

Have You read some of CODGUY ideas?

Yeah i do think they are worse. He is of a different caliber. Allies up stuff mostly and most ignore that.

I saw you tacking a step back on what you said about who should be allowed to talk about balance. It shows character. I went overboard with my remarks, my apologies for that.
I personaly fet frustrated when people want to decide who gets a say and who doesnt.