Does the Zis really need barrage?
Posts: 783 | Subs: 3
Posts: 60
This makes me wonder what was the developers' original purpose for the barrage ability? Do they consider what I describe above proper and balanced role for this ability?
I can't speak for the developers, but I suspect this is precisely what they intended: an ability that lets a field gun provide indirect fire with HE shells. I think the balance is fine, seems that most people agree.
Its powerful in certain situations, but that can be said of any unit given the right situation--that's the basis for 'counters'. If barrage was consistently the most efficient use of resources compared to alternative options, we'd see that reflected in the metagame. The fact that players of all skill levels still opt to lay mines, upgrade weapons, etc instead of using all their munitions on barrage confirms that this isn't the case.
Posts: 249
Posts: 1355
http://www.twitch.tv/stephennjf/c/3714881
If there was no barage on the ZIS we would never had that Highlight
Posts: 1702
If there was no barage on the ZIS we would never had that Highlight
That wasnt a zis barrage only that was a precision strike + zis barrage.
Posts: 177
Posts: 807
Posts: 379
Your description of the ZiS-3's supposed power in the OP is misleading. You make it seem like the ZiS-3 (60 munition) barrage is the answer to any unit and you can lead assaults with a ZiS gun. In reality this will lead to your ZiS gun becoming their ZiS gun.
If you've played Soviets a considerable amount you'll realise all the pros and cons of the ZiS-3 vs the Pak 40. If you don't notice them the best solution is probably to just play more (as you seem to be arguing with the posters here)
Posts: 807
Posts: 1637
All Ranges 0-30 for simplicity:
Zis 27 DPS
Pak 40 DPS
Elephant 36-31 0-30M
Barrage being a saving grace at 60 Muni....hardly....
EDIT WOOOPS Added the Pak43s 54 DPS there instead...corrected.
Posts: 896
I can't speak for the developers, but I suspect this is precisely what they intended: an ability that lets a field gun provide indirect fire with HE shells. I think the balance is fine, seems that most people agree.
Its powerful in certain situations, but that can be said of any unit given the right situation--that's the basis for 'counters'. If barrage was consistently the most efficient use of resources compared to alternative options, we'd see that reflected in the metagame. The fact that players of all skill levels still opt to lay mines, upgrade weapons, etc instead of using all their munitions on barrage confirms that this isn't the case.
I dont know their concept either but if I were to guess I think they included it to help soviet players decrew paks from a distance. As previously pointed out Germans have very strong paks and tanks so to level the playing field a little maybe they included barrage.
But back then soviets had very weak tanks (much better now) and the zis could be suppressed so no one could move in with their zis gun and barrage a deployed mg42 without getting suppressed. I plan to record one of those incidents but for now I have this video highlighting how good barrage is. Note:
-the extra range barrage has over normal rounds (50% more I think)
-the accuracy, the mg lost 3 men to the barrage (from 4 first shells)
-the speed at which the ability recovers, it was available right away
ps. This game was against a good Germand player. I think his rank was 40 something when I played against him. I think the zis barrage made the engagement so easy for me, so hard for him.
Posts: 1702
I dont know their concept either but if I were to guess I think they included it to help soviet players decrew paks from a distance. As previously pointed out Germans have very strong paks and tanks so to level the playing field a little maybe they included barrage.
But back then soviets had very weak tanks (much better now) and the zis could be suppressed so no one could move in with their zis gun and barrage a deployed mg42 without getting suppressed. I plan to record one of those incidents but for now I have this video highlighting how good barrage is. Note:
-the extra range barrage has over normal rounds (50% more I think)
-the accuracy, the mg lost 3 men to the barrage (from 4 first shells)
-the speed at which the ability recovers, it was available right away
ps. This game was against a good Germand player. I think his rank was 40 something when I played against him. I think the zis barrage made the engagement so easy for me, so hard for him.
That was extremelly lucky, usually it only hits 1-2 times the rest miss. It's a costly ability. And it doesn't have any extra range over normal round. Infact, it's shorter than normal rounds.
Like i said, 2 riflegrenades, cost the same, come from a much more versatile unit (grens) and do a better job. I don't understand why soviets can't have anything decent?
Come on abdul, why do you ignore all arguments thrown at you and just insist that it's broken? That's exactly how it was designed. It is designed to break up defenses. You can do this with lots of things.
Posts: 84
Posts: 783 | Subs: 3
Posts: 2053
That video doesn't demonstrate anything. You had t2 and t3 plus the entire map (therefore tons of muni to burn on zis barrages) and all the Zis did was decrew the MG, which he could have recrewed. It's supposed to be able to decrew weapons teams, I still don't understand why that's a problem.
Hes too stubborn to see any other way. End of thread, unsensible OP.
Posts: 187
Posts: 390
Permanently BannedPosts: 896
That was extremelly lucky, usually it only hits 1-2 times the rest miss. It's a costly ability. And it doesn't have any extra range over normal round. Infact, it's shorter than normal rounds.
Like i said, 2 riflegrenades, cost the same, come from a much more versatile unit (grens) and do a better job. I don't understand why soviets can't have anything decent?
Come on abdul, why do you ignore all arguments thrown at you and just insist that it's broken? That's exactly how it was designed. It is designed to break up defenses. You can do this with lots of things.
I am not ignoring them, I just dont agree with them, and you don't have to agree with me either. The way I see it, barrage, like ram before for example, is a questionable ability that can be toned down or removed. It had its place at one time, but now with zis receiving no suppression (which is fine) and soviet infantry being much better, its unneeded.
Instead I prefer to see the Zis cost and population reduced or its AT ability improved. That should also coincide with soviet mortar getting some balance improvements.
Posts: 1571
There would be a delay, and the zis moves to arty position. Then it'll bombard an area until ordered to stop. The rate of fire will be the same slow rate of fire as the Zis when it works as an AT gun. There is no munitions cost, and maybe price can be adjusted to reflect this.
Posts: 807
Do you really need shock Ability with german PaK?
It's target weak point and yes, it is needed AND normal for an ANTITANK gun. If Pak 40 will begin to shred infantry, would that be normal? That is the question you have to ask yourself.
Do you really need fire with german mortar half track?
It's called incendiary barrage and has nothing unusual in it. A balistic projectile load may be incendiary, nothing out of ordinary. If Mortar HT had ..ummm...let's say... "piercing armor hit" ability and would cut half of your T34 life at every hit, would you like that? Would it be "normal"?
Livestreams
7 | |||||
4 |
Ladders Top 10
-
#Steam AliasWL%Streak
- 1.831222.789+37
- 2.34957.860+14
- 3.590215.733+5
- 4.1101614.642+2
- 5.305114.728+1
- 6.916405.693-2
- 7.272108.716+23
- 8.721440.621+3
- 9.1041674.607-2
- 10.17146.788+1
Replay highlight
- cblanco ★
- 보드카 중대
- VonManteuffel
- Heartless Jäger
Board Info
8 posts in the last week
37 posts in the last month
Welcome our newest member, BrubeckDeclarkBurche
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM