The Excessive Amount Of Micro Required For Brummbar

I see you're still struggling with it, so I'll help you by underlining the part that you keep ignoring.

You're welcome.

Dear katitof since I respect your opinion, pls explain how dozer will become "equally micro demanding as the Brummbear."

Thank in advance.

(edited to correct a typo)

Now try to relax and focus on the Brumbar and not me.

I am completely relaxed. But when someone twists my words and pushes them into my mouth and also shruggs off any discussion with "ït's consistent don't want to say anything more", I expect some explanation. So far your only arguments were some arbitrary "consistence"and "friendly to use" and playing too dumb to get the message of other people's posts. I just want to hear something solid so that we can have a mature discussion about.

I am completely relaxed. But when someone twists my words and pushes them into my mouth and also shruggs off any discussion with "ït's consistent don't want to say anything more", I expect some explanation. So far your only arguments were some arbitrary "consistence"and "friendly to use" and playing too dumb to get the message of other people's posts. I just want to hear something solid so that we can have a mature discussion about.

You are obviously offended and that was never my intention. This debate is going towards a hostile which I would like to avoid so I am terminating it.

While I don't agree with how the OP frames it, I do think speeding up the Brummbar's projectile and toning down its AoE to compensate is a good idea. I've never been a fan of how much you have to babysit the thing, and it's not especially intuitive that a unit that looks like an autofire unit isn't an autofire unit.

To be fair, I hope people realise that "Make equally as strong" isn't a term that implies or necessitates a buff. This seems like a semantic argument for no reason, when you could instead just focus on the actual topic being discussed, which is Brummbar (and similar unit's) projectile speeds.

The Brummbar and the 105 are the two most comparable units, they have effectively the same role. Despite the potential of "reducing diversity" I think their projectiles being somewhat normalised would be perfectly reasonable. Whether it be reducing the speed of the 105's projectile (And consequently increasing its AOE and slightly improving its falloff... while also nerfing its scatter), or increasing the speed of the Brummbar projectile (While reducing it's AOE, nerfing its falloff, and buffing its scatter).

I'd vote for the 105mm becoming more similar to the Brummbar, personally. Perhaps it could do with a slight armour buff, as well, though the utility of being able to create cover, and the fact it has a turret might mean it should still be less armoured than the Brummbar. It also gets extra HP from veterancy, in comparison to the Brummbar getting armour, so I should imagine there is a little maths to be done.

The Stug-e and other units are rather different, I don't think they're hugely relevant to the discussion. (On an unrelated note; I might like to see the Stug-e act more like the Scott than how it acts now... though both could perhaps do with the buff of being able to autofire over shotblockers.)

Stuka has 0 scatter.

Play the game. It doesn't contradict what i said.

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.
  
  

Great, lets do then, lets reduce the velocity of the 105 sherma's projectile to that of Brumbar, at least unit behavior would be consistent

I'm sure making things equal also means:

Increasing pen from 35 flat to 140/120/100
AoE radius from 5.5 to 6
Dmg distance from 0.425/1.0/5.0 to 0.625/1.25/6.0
Dmg AoE far from 0.175 to 0.2
Increase 0HK area from 0.88 to 1.11 (just because area is difficult to understand, that's an increase of around 60%)
Nerf RoF from avg 7.0s to 8.25


You are obviously overly defensive and that was never my intention. This debate is going nowhere which I would like to avoid so I am terminating it.

You want it buffed because you like the Brumbar or do you want it buffed because objectively the game will benefit from its buff?

You want it buffed because you like the Brumbar or do you want it buffed because objectively the game will benefit from its buff?

Let try this one final time.

There are two things unit balance and unit behavior.

The proposed chance aim to decrease the gap in performance between auto-fire and manual-fire of the Brumbar bringing in line with other units that one does not have to manual aim their shots.

Balance is separate thing and if the this gap is decreased the unit should be adjusted to compensate.

the gap in performance between auto-fire and manual-fire of the Brummbar

There is no gap in performance. All you need to do is attack move with it.

@mods lock this stupid thread already.

Let try this one final time.

There are two things unit balance and unit behavior.

The proposed chance aim to decrease the gap in performance between auto-fire and manual-fire of the Brumbar bringing in line with other units that one does not have to manual aim their shots.

Balance is separate thing and if the this gap is decreased the unit should be adjusted to compensate.

You are so stubbornly pushing this change, but haven't produced a singular replay of life situation, where it would show that brumbar needs that.

You can't produce evidence or even a test, because its fine and performs well?

There is no gap in performance. All you need to do is attack move with it.

You can't be serious. Auto attack is okay but nowhere near as effective as manual aim, because it often targets one of the outer models and doesn't properly lead.

You can't be serious. Auto attack is okay but nowhere near as effective as manual aim, because it often targets one of the outer models and doesn't properly lead.

Total propaganda.

Attack move works very well and saves an insane amount of micro. You have all been hoodwinked by a couple tryhards who spend all their micro on the brummbar and then wonder why they're getting rekt.


Most of the time the squads are pretty clumped up and attack move has better shell velocity than attack ground so it makes up for sometimes targeting the wrong model.