OST clubbing UKF like a baby seal

I always look at Cruzz's AoE score on his dps sheet as a quick and dirty way to check how good an AoE weapon is against infantry.

I take it at face value, because it's usually in-line with my own experience, altough I have no idea what the exact calculation behind it is. I only know it takes all AoE damage values and scatter values into account, but not accuracy and reload time.

I think it can be kinda misleading. It's better to understand how to read AoE profiles than rely on that number.

Why?

Well, i'll start with a simple question. What do you think it's more lethal. A normal mortar round or a Zis barrage round ?
The AoE chart gives the mortar a better value, but that's only because the mid to far AoE damage is better.
Now, do you think the the pre nerf Zis barrage was roughly 40% worse than the current one even though it was nerfed?

Mid to far dmg masquerades the AoE value. If i were to give a weapon with a huge AoE radius an improvement on the far damage from say 5 to 10, the AoE value will rise drastically. Even though we both can agree it's pretty much negligible. If you were to cut down the dmg of a grenade in near dmg by 2, the effects are great even though the change is minimal.

The reason why the Comet is far better than the T85 while having a smaller 0HK is due to the far damage not been meaningless at 32 vs 8.

snip

how are those calculations done? it feels highly dubious to just follow some random score rating without knowing the mathematics underneath... in any case i have also done an average damage per square meter calculation and the T-34 seems to have higher average damage per square meter... granted the much lower scatter and greater far damage of the comet may be the deciding factor as to why it has good rating through the cruzz system though...

Comparing MG DPS to AOE is rather pointless, because the MG DPS is heavily affected by cover (-50% accuracy) and target size. AOE effectively ignores these (ignoring the 2-6% chance for a direct accuracy hit) but instead is heavily affected by RNG scatter rolls. Both weapons have their own ups and downs in regards to DPS/DPM, but the mechanics behind them lie so far apart that you can't really compare them.

that is true... even with even MTTK in open ground an aoe weapon would have variable performance to small arms fire against targets behind terrain or cover... another major factor is the formation the units are in/how packed the target squad is... soo many variables can affect aoe that 100% foolproof comparison against small arms fire is not exactly viable... but what open ground MTTK or some other similar comparison allows us to do at least is to give us a starting point or benchmark for comparison...

And that is the whole point of my Brummbaer example. Your initial argument was based on OHK and the estimate that 1-2 shots should be enough to kill a single model squad. Brummbär has the same OHK radius at the T34/85. As you said the first shot is not more deadly on a healthy squad that anything else, but the second and third shots are the ones that hit hard because the Brummbaer has a flat AoE curve that retains a lot of damage on the edges. Same thing with the Comet, although not as pronounced.

yep i did address it in my second point... have a read

the brummbar has much larger aoe/splash to the point where it does can easily exceed 80 per shot... it usually doesnt kill a model in its first shot but 2 shots can easily wipe off 4-5 models off a conscript... thats an average of 180 damage split off 4 models...

the 180 figure being 4 to 5 models killed in 2 shots

target conscript squad
HP per model = 80
HP for 4 models = 320
HP for 5 models = 400
assumed number of shots to kill 4 to 5 models = 2 shots
minimum damage per shot (assuming 4 models) = 160
maximum damage per shot (assuming 5 models) = 200
assumed average damage per shot = 180
assumed average damage per 2 shots = 360




in any case all these estimates and rating are really just very rough models... none of these models can replace the accuracy of a well measured mean time to kill in cheatmods and even then mean time to kill itself is subject to variability... an aoe weapon for example will perform much better against densely packed formations but will do significantly less damage against the loose formations... in contrast small arms weapons dont care about formations and are instead affected by target size...

anyways ill try to do MTTK with cheat mods a bit later when i get back...

Directly comparing the Panther and Comet is a bit like comparing an AT gun and a mortar (inb4 ZiS). They simply aren't intended for the same job.

For a fair comparison you would absolutely need to place them in the context of a full army build (As with almost any unit, but for dissimilar units moreso)rather than worrying about their individual performance.

That said, I think it can be, and indeed seems to be, agreed that the Comet is superior in AI performance (And utility), and the Panther is in AT performance.

Amen to that.

I think it can be kinda misleading. It's better to understand how to read AoE profiles than rely on that number.

It works for me, I can read AoE values just fine, but not scatter values, which the AoE score takes into account.

And again, it fits with my experience, for example:

• I feel the 'nerfed' Tiger is on average much better against infantry than it was before the whole scatter/AoE rework -> AoE score agrees.
  
• P4 J and T34/85 feel like they have a much more consistent main guns than their cheaper versions -> AoE score agrees.
  

Well, i'll start with a simple question. What do you think it's more lethal. A normal mortar round or a Zis barrage round ?
The AoE chart gives the mortar a better value, but that's only because the mid to far AoE damage is better.

They're not really comparable, zis barrage has much shorter reload and each round takes far shorter to land.

If mortar rounds would be fired by the zis gun in as fast a succession, I wouldn't be surprised if they were on average more lethal.

Better would be to compare similar weapons like leig, 80mm, pack howi and 120mm with each other, then the AoE score aligns with how I experience each in-game. Of course, you'd have to take into account the reload time yourself.

Now, do you think the the pre nerf Zis barrage was roughly 40% worse than the current one even though it was nerfed?

Ye, it feels stronger than it was before against units in the open. Also gets used constantly by pretty much everyone now, so I wouldn't call it a nerf.

Mid to far dmg masquerad es the AoE value. If i were to give a weapon with a huge AoE radius an improvement on the far damage from say 5 to 10, the AoE value will rise drastically. Even though we both can agree it's pretty much negligible. If you were to cut down the dmg of a grenade in near dmg by 2, the effects are great even though the change is minimal.

I'm not sure how it's calculated, the answer lies somewhere here (functions at the bottom): https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B7gwy65JLbSRMEJ3M2ZPandMMW8/view

I assume the AoE score is some kind of representation of the average damage done to the center point the weapon is aiming at, if taking into account the AoE and scatter profile.

I'm more concerned that a higher near damage might inflate the AoE score, while it wouldn't help much against infantry. That's why it's probably better to only compare units with above 80 near damage with units that have the same near damage.

The reason why the Comet is far better than the T85 while having a smaller 0HK is due to the far damage not been meaningless at 32 vs 8.

Ye, and the better scatter.

OHK radius is overrated anyway.

Ye, it feels stronger than it was before against units in the open. Also gets used constantly by pretty much everyone now, so I wouldn't call it a nerf.



I'm not sure how it's calculated, the answer lies somewhere here (functions at the bottom): https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B7gwy65JLbSRMEJ3M2ZPandMMW8/view

I assume the AoE score is some kind of representation of the average damage done to the center point the weapon is aiming at, if taking into account the AoE and scatter profile.

I'm more concerned that a higher near damage might inflate the AoE score, while it wouldn't help much against infantry. That's why it's probably better to only compare units with above 80 near damage with units that have the same near damage.



Ye, and the better scatter.

OHK radius is overrated anyway.

1 n 2: You got the point. What i'm trying to say that the value per se is not good as long as you don't compare units which have similar damage profiles. On it's own the AoE value has no intrinsic merit.

That's why i made the comparison between a single mortar round vs a single Zis shell. They both have 80 dmg but completely different damage profiles.

3- I think you are confusing the patches. Zis gun saw extreme use and deem OP when they move cost to 35 from 60 when reducing the amount of shells from 6 to 4 (on top of the pop reduce). It was basically lobbing grenades (lethal AoE) from 60 range.
The nerf was a bandaid cause it still lobbing pseudo mortar shells for 35 muni and still lethal and leaves almost no reaction time for support weapon if used in pairs.

4- Same as point 1.

5- 0HK is simple another metric. I mean, mortar meta was killed the moment they no longer 0HK models.

Hook, line & sinker for these threads lol.

The reason why the Comet is far better than the T85 while having a smaller 0HK is due to the far damage not been meaningless at 32 vs 8.

true... though i think the comet still usually takes 1 or 2 rounds to kill at range 30... not too much experience with the comet`s AOE since i prefer the churchill to the comet however imma give it a try and see what`s what...

true... though i think the comet still usually takes 1 or 2 rounds to kill at range 30... not too much experience with the comet`s AOE since i prefer the churchill to the comet however imma give it a try and see what`s what...

The Comet's cannon is (practically) unaffected by such things as RA, or yellow cover, and can also fire at squads it cannot see (such as through smoke, or sight blockers). It also, as mentioned, has the Warcrime Shell, and a crew-thrown grenade. (Gren DR obviously affects it, as does Green Cover. Both these things affect the Panther as well, though obviously it doesn't generally fight Grens)

The Panther's machineguns, on the other hand, have their DPS significantly reduced by squads with good RA, and also reduced by infantry squads with Armour, of which the Allies have two, to my knowledge, and also affected by yellow cover. In practice it's DPS will be but a fraction of what you might be seeing.


Pretty sure the Comet totally beats the Panther in any realistic scenario for AI duties.

The Comet's cannon is (practically) unaffected by such things as RA, or yellow cover, and can also fire at squads it cannot see (such as through smoke, or sight blockers).

yeah instead its affected by formation green cover and terrain... loose formation is one of the worst enemies of AOE... it means that your shots do much less overall damage as only 1 or maybe 2 models at best are hit by the aoe... green cover reduces AOE damage by 50% (i think) while terrain acts to "catch" the shell which may block all shots in its entirity depending on the terrain of the map....

It also, as mentioned, has the Warcrime Shell, and a crew-thrown grenade.

hahaha that one cracks me up

but in all seriousness i agree... WP and grenades are good... just not anti infantry per se... yeah grenades do alot of damage against infantry but not for squads out in the open at least for grenades... its really risky to get close up and and grenade a mainline squad when you may soon eat a panzerfaust... id say that grenade is far more useful against team weapons more than mainline infantry tbh...

WP is good aswell as a utility tool as it can warcrime an AT gun or MG to prevent it from firing while damaging it... but remember that using WP means that there will be no further shots fired into the infantry your shooting at... its more of a utility tool more than anything

The Panther's machineguns, on the other hand, have their DPS significantly reduced by squads with good RA, and also reduced by infantry squads with Armour, of which the Allies have two, to my knowledge, and also affected by yellow cover. In practice it's DPS will be but a fraction of what you might be seeing.

two? only shocks have it afaik...

Well, put vet3 volks, and say vet 3 cons in yellow crater. Put the comet in front of the volks and Panther in front of the cons and see how long it takes to kill them. Comet + MGs and Panther + pintle MG. If Panther wins, I'll eat my own socks. You can also test it by having the comet/panther circle without stopping around the unit in the crater, which is closer to the real game scenario.

yeah instead its affected by formation green cover and terrain... loose formation is one of the worst enemies of AOE... it means that your shots do much less overall damage as only 1 or maybe 2 models at best are hit by the aoe... green cover reduces AOE damage by 50% (i think) while terrain acts to "catch" the shell which may block all shots in its entirity depending on the terrain of the map....



hahaha that one cracks me up

but in all seriousness i agree... WP and grenades are good... just not anti infantry per se... yeah grenades do alot of damage against infantry but not for squads out in the open at least for grenades... its really risky to get close up and and grenade a mainline squad when you may soon eat a panzerfaust... id say that grenade is far more useful against team weapons more than mainline infantry tbh...

WP is good aswell as a utility tool as it can warcrime an AT gun or MG to prevent it from firing while damaging it... but remember that using WP means that there will be no further shots fired into the infantry your shooting at... its more of a utility tool more than anything



two? only shocks have it afaik...

Terrain can also cause a shot that would have scattered far too far to hit a target instead, as well. It's a factor that is hard to quantify. Green cover does indeed provide a 50% dr (Against most weaponry) to squads, yeah. I think i mentioned that already though.

The grenade can in fact be used to heavily punish a snaring squad, assuming you time it correctly. They are forced to either cancel their snare and move, or take potentially lethal damage.

If you Willy Pete an infantry squad you can then attack ground into the smoke for followup shots. The only things you lose from warcriming a squad are your MGs, and the damage from the shot you could have fired instead of the WP. The blinding/slowing/damage from the shell makes up for this last part.

I agree the shell is very useful for utility purposes as well, unless it has changed WP also debuffs vehicles (Main gun disabled?) while they are in the cloud. Team Weapons are infantry, for all intents and purposes, honestly. They have the same attributes, and so the Grenade and WP being particularly useful versus them is a point in it's AI favour, in my mind.

Also as protos has stated, in a realistic scenario you really will be getting far more out of the Comet vs infantry

Royal Engineers under the Anvil doctrine gain armour along with their Vickers, unless this was changed in a patch I am unaware of.

Green cover does indeed provide a 50% dr (Against most weaponry) to squads, yeah. I think i mentioned that already though.

It's important to remember here that the heavy cover 0.5 damage reduction does not fully work against tank AOE (or other heavy weapon AOE) because they deal 160-240 damage. 50% of which is still a OHK for infantry models. So at close AOE range they will generally still be lethal (OHK) or close to lethal even when firing against heavy cover. It obviously also won't affect AOE damage (or rather it affects it negatively) when the squad happens to be on the wrong side of cover.

It's important to remember here that the heavy cover 0.5 damage reduction does not fully work against tank AOE (or other heavy weapon AOE) because they deal 160-240 damage. 50% of which is still a OHK for infantry models. So at close AOE range they will generally still be lethal (OHK) or close to lethal even when firing against heavy cover. It obviously also won't affect AOE damage (or rather it affects it negatively) when the squad happens to be on the wrong side of cover.

I should know this but does cover applies even if it gets destroyed or transformed into light at the moment of impact?

I should know this but does cover applies even if it gets destroyed or transformed into light at the moment of impact?

I'm not sure if the cover bonus is applied first before the object is destroyed by the same shot. I do know that when cover is destroyed (by something else) the cover bonus is removed pretty much immediately. It has happened to me that I held a squad in heavy cover behind a truck to take -50% damage from a grenade before retreating when the truck got destroyed by an ATG shot a millisecond before the grenade detonated, which made the squad take full damage.

Codguy do yourself a favor and next time just post a "hey, what are good builds for UKF against OST" thread. Unit interactions are all relative with timing, generally speaking early 5 Men IS will give you a lot of map control before Grens get their upgrades because they can't hang otherwise. The fuel cost in negligible with the increased map income and only becomes a problem if they get light vehicles and push you off map before you can get AEC/AT gun out but that's usually a result of your bad play not balance.

I love the UKF but the artillery flare definitely needs a price increase (but maybe only with T2 to not utterly gimp the early game) as I just lob one every time an engagement starts to go against me. Then if the enemy tries to push they risk getting wiped (especially with anvil) for a good period of time. All for 45 muni.

Never really gave it much thought until I played more axis recently and realised this is a misery to play against.

On a side note, all artillery flares need to die in a ditch and be replaced with recon planes.

I'm not sure if the cover bonus is applied first before the object is destroyed by the same shot. I do know that when cover is destroyed (by something else) the cover bonus is removed pretty much immediately. It has happened to me that I held a squad in heavy cover behind a truck to take -50% damage from a grenade before retreating when the truck got destroyed by an ATG shot a millisecond before the grenade detonated, which made the squad take full damage.

I think i'll do some tests later, but i think i have a couple of scenarios in my mind.

Grenade goes over cover, cover is destroyed by grenade.
G goes inside multi directional cover, cover is changed to light.
G goes over no cover but squad moves perpendicular into cover

It's important to remember here that the heavy cover 0.5 damage reduction does not fully work against tank AOE (or other heavy weapon AOE) because they deal 160-240 damage. 50% of which is still a OHK for infantry models. So at close AOE range they will generally still be lethal (OHK) or close to lethal even when firing against heavy cover. It obviously also won't affect AOE damage (or rather it affects it negatively) when the squad happens to be on the wrong side of cover.

I agree, but i'd word it as "The heavy cover DR isnt as meaningful as it seems" rather than "Doesnt fully work". It still cuts damage in half, it's just that Tank shells do so much damage that in the OHKO zone this is irrelevant. It DOES however reduce the size of the OHKO zone, assuming that damage doesn't drop directly from 160/240 to 79 between the closest damage interval and the next. I don't know the exact curves of various shells though.

I think it's still good to be behind heavy cover.