Login

russian armor

[Winter Balance Update] General Discussion

  • This thread is locked
PAGES (44)down
12 Dec 2020, 13:09 PM
#441
avatar of mongman

Posts: 27

jump backJump back to quoted post12 Dec 2020, 12:56 PMKatitof

Not really, because stuka was BUFFED vs emplacements and emplacements are already ridiculously easy to counter by both axis factions to the point where they are barely usable outside of advanced emplacements doctrine.


didn't the stuka lose 25% of it's bonus damage to emplacements? also with the buffs to churchhills AI, Bofors and having enough IQ to brace against arty like I said, won't that just promote sim city? not tryin to be a prick here just curious
12 Dec 2020, 13:24 PM
#442
avatar of Sander93

Posts: 3166 | Subs: 6

jump backJump back to quoted post12 Dec 2020, 13:09 PMmongman
didn't the stuka lose 25% of it's bonus damage to emplacements?


Its bonus damage got removed because its direct penetration got fixed, which will make it better against emplacements on average. Direct hits (now dealing full damage rather than only deflection damage because of the bugged pen) are more likely than AOE hits (the only hits that dealt full damage before).

A barrage should now deal at least 400 damage on average (2 direct hits or near misses with good aiming and good scatter) instead of ~80-380 (1-2 direct hits and/or maybe one near AOE hit) it did previously.
12 Dec 2020, 13:39 PM
#443
avatar of mongman

Posts: 27



Its bonus damage got removed because its direct penetration got fixed, which will make it better against emplacements on average. Direct hits (now dealing full damage rather than only deflection damage because of the bugged pen) are more likely than AOE hits (the only hits that dealt full damage before).

A barrage should now deal at least 400 damage on average (2 direct hits or near misses with good aiming and good scatter) instead of ~80-380 (1-2 direct hits and/or maybe one near AOE hit) it did previously.


oh ok sounds about right thanks, but I reckon advance emplacements commander is gonna be even more cancerous to deal with with these buffs to Churchill AI and mortar buffs
12 Dec 2020, 15:04 PM
#444
avatar of Lady Xenarra

Posts: 956

I'm sure it's been said before but I seriously doubt the minor reload time nerf to the Calliope is enough, esp for something that can go near the frontline with minimal fear of being sniped out and delete squads with nary any warning. Hope it gets a serious look at in the commander overhaul later, suggesting at least another -10% reload time to the vet stats or other nerf.

12 Dec 2020, 15:35 PM
#445
avatar of Kyle

Posts: 322

jump backJump back to quoted post12 Dec 2020, 12:49 PMmongman
I haven't seen anyone talk about this yet but with the nerfs to stuka damage to emplacements, the ability to build bofors with AEC and the long range barrage and cheaper mortar pit buffs could this promote another batch of sim city cancer?


Tbh if you playing as OKW and you wanna destroy sim city then use double Ig gun (With 25% faster ability recharge), it would rekt sim city faster then waiting for Stuka, unless enemy going for the fortify doctrine then you might get counter barrage pretty fast.
12 Dec 2020, 19:19 PM
#446
avatar of JibberJabberJobber

Posts: 1614 | Subs: 3

I'm sure it's been said before but I seriously doubt the minor reload time nerf to the Calliope is enough


It's a consistency change with the changes other mobile rocket artillery got. Calliope is not within the scope of a patch focused primarily on stock armies.
12 Dec 2020, 22:58 PM
#447
avatar of KT610

Posts: 69

Heavy artillery (105MM,152mm,203mm,Sexton, and Priest) should limited to one like heavy tanks. This go a long way to help break up the Arty spam meta of 3v3 and 4v4
12 Dec 2020, 23:38 PM
#448
avatar of Grumpy

Posts: 1954

jump backJump back to quoted post12 Dec 2020, 22:58 PMKT610
Heavy artillery (105MM,152mm,203mm,Sexton, and Priest) should limited to one like heavy tanks. This go a long way to help break up the Arty spam meta of 3v3 and 4v4


You could probably throw in rocket arty to this list (Calliope, Walking Stuka, Katy, etc).
Pip
13 Dec 2020, 00:40 AM
#449
avatar of Pip

Posts: 1594

A lot of the more "Problematic" units could likely be more effectively balanced by putting caps on the number that can be on the field at one time.

I might even go so far as to suggest team-wide caps on the number of certain units. Reducing the number of Rocket/Regular artillery, and heavy tanks, might go a long way to making 3v3 and 4v4 more bearable lategame.
13 Dec 2020, 01:07 AM
#450
avatar of thedarkarmadillo

Posts: 5279

jump backJump back to quoted post13 Dec 2020, 00:40 AMPip
A lot of the more "Problematic" units could likely be more effectively balanced by putting caps on the number that can be on the field at one time.

I might even go so far as to suggest team-wide caps on the number of certain units. Reducing the number of Rocket/Regular artillery, and heavy tanks, might go a long way to making 3v3 and 4v4 more bearable lategame.

hard caps per player, yes. per team? no. i dont want to lose the ability to build my tiger, that i picked my commander for because my team mate sat not building anything all game so he would have the fuel to get the only one out. its annoying enough when a mate spams fuel caches and you cant do anything about it when all you need is munitions let alone locking out core elements of commanders.

hard caps on heavies have made them the best they have been in years because you dont have to worry about critical mass, ive said many times in the past other problematic units could benifi the same way. id even go as far as to limit ALL doctrinal units. would save the problems were running into now with ostroppen and ensure they can still retain flavour and balance.
13 Dec 2020, 01:13 AM
#451
avatar of ShadowLinkX37
Director of Moderation Badge

Posts: 4183 | Subs: 4

Why do we still allow bunkers to be spammed?
13 Dec 2020, 01:38 AM
#452
avatar of mongman

Posts: 27

Why do we still allow bunkers to be spammed?


if your enemy is spamming bunkers then they're wasting all their manpower and you should be able to steamroll them unless your sitting back like a moron
Pip
13 Dec 2020, 01:49 AM
#453
avatar of Pip

Posts: 1594


hard caps per player, yes. per team? no. i dont want to lose the ability to build my tiger, that i picked my commander for because my team mate sat not building anything all game so he would have the fuel to get the only one out. its annoying enough when a mate spams fuel caches and you cant do anything about it when all you need is munitions let alone locking out core elements of commanders.

hard caps on heavies have made them the best they have been in years because you dont have to worry about critical mass, ive said many times in the past other problematic units could benifi the same way. id even go as far as to limit ALL doctrinal units. would save the problems were running into now with ostroppen and ensure they can still retain flavour and balance.


Honestly I think the benefits of capping units per-team in large modes might outweigh the frustration of not being able to build the unit you like. It would be annoying not to be able to build your tiger... but it would stop the enemy having two IS2, two B4, and a crocodile. Or vice versa.

The frustration would be reduced by communicating with your teammates, and coordinating as well, though obviously this isnt likely to happen with randoms. I think it might be worth trialling at least? People constantly complain that large modes devolve into arty/armour spam, and doing something about that would be kind of nice.

DEFINITELY implement/trial per-player caps though.
13 Dec 2020, 01:58 AM
#454
avatar of thedarkarmadillo

Posts: 5279

jump backJump back to quoted post13 Dec 2020, 01:49 AMPip


Honestly I think the benefits of capping units per-team in large modes might outweigh the frustration of not being able to build the unit you like. It would be annoying not to be able to build your tiger... but it would stop the enemy having two IS2, two B4, and a crocodile. Or vice versa.

The frustration would be reduced by communicating with your teammates, and coordinating as well, though obviously this isnt likely to happen with randoms. I think it might be worth trialling at least? People constantly complain that large modes devolve into arty/armour spam, and doing something about that would be kind of nice.

DEFINITELY implement/trial per-player caps though.

I think most people play team games for the heavies. Iconic units like the tiger, and i really think capping for a team would kill the game. Under no circumstance should a player be playing with only 80% of a commander because some guy who doesn't even respond to team sharted out their tiger. Team games shouldn't be fighting with the enemy and your allies and I can see people dropping if they don't get their tank
13 Dec 2020, 02:15 AM
#455
avatar of ShadowLinkX37
Director of Moderation Badge

Posts: 4183 | Subs: 4

jump backJump back to quoted post13 Dec 2020, 01:38 AMmongman


if your enemy is spamming bunkers then they're wasting all their manpower and you should be able to steamroll them unless your sitting back like a moron


?? Enlighten me how to destroy bunkers when your opponent wins the indirect war on non flankable maps?
Pip
13 Dec 2020, 02:36 AM
#456
avatar of Pip

Posts: 1594



?? Enlighten me how to destroy bunkers when your opponent wins the indirect war on non flankable maps?


Theoretically they shouldn't be able to outdo your indirect options if they're using so much manpower on bunkers.

AT guns also make very short work of them.

Other options include: Satchels and Demo Charges. I suppose you'd either use a scout car or smoke to get close.
13 Dec 2020, 02:42 AM
#457
avatar of ShadowLinkX37
Director of Moderation Badge

Posts: 4183 | Subs: 4

jump backJump back to quoted post13 Dec 2020, 02:36 AMPip


Theoretically they shouldn't be able to outdo your indirect options if they're using so much manpower on bunkers.

AT guns also make very short work of them.

Other options include: Satchels and Demo Charges. I suppose you'd either use a scout car or smoke to get close.


The issue I run into is, when you have an AT gun try and destroy it, it just gets blasted by mortars. Not to mention you're either attack grounding or have to walk into its line of fire and be suppressed. And like I don't mean that the guy is only building bunkers, he has an actual composition behind it and in mid-lategame he's just spending his float on no popcap suppression platforms. It's just the amount of effort to break a multi bunker defense is ridiculous compared to how much effort is required to operate. Another problem is typically once that person gets their campfest setup, maybe some mines and some AT guns, they can then dump all their actual infantry and tanks to their teammates side and start doubling up.
13 Dec 2020, 04:02 AM
#458
avatar of mongman

Posts: 27



The issue I run into is, when you have an AT gun try and destroy it, it just gets blasted by mortars. Not to mention you're either attack grounding or have to walk into its line of fire and be suppressed. And like I don't mean that the guy is only building bunkers, he has an actual composition behind it and in mid-lategame he's just spending his float on no popcap suppression platforms. It's just the amount of effort to break a multi bunker defense is ridiculous compared to how much effort is required to operate. Another problem is typically once that person gets their campfest setup, maybe some mines and some AT guns, they can then dump all their actual infantry and tanks to their teammates side and start doubling up.


axisvssimcity'firsttime?'.jpg

13 Dec 2020, 04:06 AM
#459
avatar of mongman

Posts: 27

in all seriousness tho assuming it's VC go for the other points while building long range arty to pressure that area or double up with your ally to stomp his side and go for that skitz flank

also if your enemy is floating then you gotta look at how you let them float in the first place and improve your early game, bunkers 'seem' cheap but when your strapped for mp/munis it can be an investment
13 Dec 2020, 15:13 PM
#460
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1

After the debate about heal I made some additional test:
I tested Soviet base heal Live, Soviet base heal, UKF medics, USF ambulance and the time to heal 24 entities with 0 HP.

Best healing is Ambulance/UKF medic around 70% better than Soviet base healing live.

Soviet base healing in the patch is around 25% live.

These are big change which will upset the current healing ratio speed of faction and I see little reason for one to proceeded with them unless on does extensive testing.

There are certainly not "quality of life changes".
PAGES (44)down
0 user is browsing this thread:

Livestreams

France 14
Sweden 13

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

778 users are online: 778 guests
1 post in the last 24h
8 posts in the last week
26 posts in the last month
Registered members: 48781
Welcome our newest member, greenwayautorec
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM