Katyusha seriously need a nerf

Both the Walking Stuka and the Katyusha (in its current form) have large issues.

The Walking stuka: Very long cooldown. Precise and easily defined strike area in a long line. "walking" barrage.

Thoughts: The Stukas characteristics are both an asset and a hindrance. The narrow line strike area allows for precision bombing, but also gives clear indication as to direction and danger zone to the enemy. Unless many enemy units are set up perfectly in a line there is little chance of hitting very many units in a general area and the creeping effect allows for a relatively easy side stepping of the strike zone for the alert player with good reflexes. The Stuka rarely wipes entire squads unless these are garrisoned or support weapons that take equipment damage and is destroyed (most often if damaged before and not repaired). It does wipe squads that are squadAI(tm) "bunched up" in a small poinpoint if a rocket lands right, there is scatter within the zone so this is by no means guaranteed. The main issue with the Stuka is its ability to wipe hurt and retreating squads by predicting retreat paths. This should, in my opinion, not be possible. Otherwise the "pros and cons" nature of the weapon and its long cooldown is a fairly good mix.

The Katyusha: Relatively short cooldown, large and undefined area with a lot of scatter, but very high AoE and strike damage across that zone. Fires "barrages" of rockets one after the other.

Thoughts: This is pretty much the same as the Stuka in the "asset and hindrance" aspect. The large and undefined area makes precision bombing impossible, but also makes predicting the actual hits next to impossible, necessitating a complete withdrawal from a large area of the map. Also wipes squads that are already damaged or squadAI(tm) bunched. Due to random scatter of several barrages, the Katyusha has a better chance of hurting a squad in one volley and wiping it in the consecutive volleys. The Katyusha is more problematic for the OKW than for the Ostheer, in that the okw keep bases on field and use "hard points" to fight. The OKW trucks take a large amount of damage from the Katyusha, and cannot avoid the barrage. In general I think this different set of strengths and weaknesses balances out well in comparison to the Stuka. However, cooldown needs to be significantly longer (comparable to the stuka) and the damage against OKW trucks modified. A slight (and I do mean slight) decrease of the AoE damage to allow some side stepping would probably be a good idea.

Blanket statements like "if the stuka is fine so is the katyusha" is hardly constructive. Both units have issues and different uses. Avoiding hyperbole, playing with and against the unit and learning to mitigate it rather than simply calling "op" and dropping the whole "no you <insert faction of your choice fanboy here>" would lead to much better balance discussions.

I think the cooldown is fine the problem is the increased damaage on the rockets it got. OKW trucks take high damage and the precision strike even kills howitzers in one go.
A decrease in damage and a small decrease in AOE would be fine.

No it doesn't.

And to be honest, everyone attempting to rehash the rationale that "you can just rush it with a puma or a ____" is being incredibly unrealistic or exploiting this situation in an effort to feed Ostheer/OKW players terrible advice.

I'm assuming the former.

Nope. It is called being agressive. For some reason people love playing defensively .

However I am talking about 1 v1 . Team games have always been a hugee clusterfuck.

Both the Walking Stuka and the Katyusha (in its current form) have large issues.

The Walking stuka: Very long cooldown. Precise and easily defined strike area in a long line. "walking" barrage.

Thoughts: The Stukas characteristics are both an asset and a hindrance. The narrow line strike area allows for precision bombing, but also gives clear indication as to direction and danger zone to the enemy. Unless many enemy units are set up perfectly in a line there is little chance of hitting very many units in a general area and the creeping effect allows for a relatively easy side stepping of the strike zone for the alert player with good reflexes. The Stuka rarely wipes entire squads unless these are garrisoned or support weapons that take equipment damage and is destroyed (most often if damaged before and not repaired). It does wipe squads that are squadAI(tm) "bunched up" in a small poinpoint if a rocket lands right, there is scatter within the zone so this is by no means guaranteed. The main issue with the Stuka is its ability to wipe hurt and retreating squads by predicting retreat paths. This should, in my opinion, not be possible. Otherwise the "pros and cons" nature of the weapon and its long cooldown is a fairly good mix.

The Katyusha: Relatively short cooldown, large and undefined area with a lot of scatter, but very high AoE and strike damage across that zone. Fires "barrages" of rockets one after the other.

Thoughts: This is pretty much the same as the Stuka in the "asset and hindrance" aspect. The large and undefined area makes precision bombing impossible, but also makes predicting the actual hits next to impossible, necessitating a complete withdrawal from a large area of the map. Also wipes squads that are already damaged or squadAI(tm) bunched. Due to random scatter of several barrages, the Katyusha has a better chance of hurting a squad in one volley and wiping it in the consecutive volleys. The Katyusha is more problematic for the OKW than for the Ostheer, in that the okw keep bases on field and use "hard points" to fight. The OKW trucks take a large amount of damage from the Katyusha, and cannot avoid the barrage. In general I think this different set of strengths and weaknesses balances out well in comparison to the Stuka. However, cooldown needs to be significantly longer (comparable to the stuka) and the damage against OKW trucks modified. A slight (and I do mean slight) decrease of the AoE damage to allow some side stepping would probably be a good idea.

Blanket statements like "if the stuka is fine so is the katyusha" is hardly constructive. Both units have issues and different uses. Avoiding hyperbole, playing with and against the unit and learning to mitigate it rather than simply calling "op" and dropping the whole "no you <insert faction of your choice fanboy here>" would lead to much better balance discussions.

Exactly my opinion.

Both the Walking Stuka and the Katyusha (in its current form) have large issues.

The Walking stuka: Very long cooldown. Precise and easily defined strike area in a long line. "walking" barrage.

Thoughts: The Stukas characteristics are both an asset and a hindrance. The narrow line strike area allows for precision bombing, but also gives clear indication as to direction and danger zone to the enemy. Unless many enemy units are set up perfectly in a line there is little chance of hitting very many units in a general area and the creeping effect allows for a relatively easy side stepping of the strike zone for the alert player with good reflexes. The Stuka rarely wipes entire squads unless these are garrisoned or support weapons that take equipment damage and is destroyed (most often if damaged before and not repaired). It does wipe squads that are squadAI(tm) "bunched up" in a small poinpoint if a rocket lands right, there is scatter within the zone so this is by no means guaranteed. The main issue with the Stuka is its ability to wipe hurt and retreating squads by predicting retreat paths. This should, in my opinion, not be possible. Otherwise the "pros and cons" nature of the weapon and its long cooldown is a fairly good mix.

The Katyusha: Relatively short cooldown, large and undefined area with a lot of scatter, but very high AoE and strike damage across that zone. Fires "barrages" of rockets one after the other.

Thoughts: This is pretty much the same as the Stuka in the "asset and hindrance" aspect. The large and undefined area makes precision bombing impossible, but also makes predicting the actual hits next to impossible, necessitating a complete withdrawal from a large area of the map. Also wipes squads that are already damaged or squadAI(tm) bunched. Due to random scatter of several barrages, the Katyusha has a better chance of hurting a squad in one volley and wiping it in the consecutive volleys. The Katyusha is more problematic for the OKW than for the Ostheer, in that the okw keep bases on field and use "hard points" to fight. The OKW trucks take a large amount of damage from the Katyusha, and cannot avoid the barrage. In general I think this different set of strengths and weaknesses balances out well in comparison to the Stuka. However, cooldown needs to be significantly longer (comparable to the stuka) and the damage against OKW trucks modified. A slight (and I do mean slight) decrease of the AoE damage to allow some side stepping would probably be a good idea.

Blanket statements like "if the stuka is fine so is the katyusha" is hardly constructive. Both units have issues and different uses. Avoiding hyperbole, playing with and against the unit and learning to mitigate it rather than simply calling "op" and dropping the whole "no you <insert faction of your choice fanboy here>" would lead to much better balance discussions.

Very nicely put. I totally agree.

Panzerwerfer, you say?

Whats that?

Never seen or heard!

Dev should read this and make a hotfix.

This is a difficult subject. Imo the best fix to the Katy mess would be giving it as long a cooldown as the Stuka.

Then it still is more deadly than a Stuka even though Stuka costs more and OKW is handicapped with low fuel income. No, that is not enough. Katyusha has to be weaker than Stuka or these units need cost readjustments.

Id say reduce the amount of rockets in a Katyusha barrage a bit, and increase a bit the time between rocket impacts on a Stuka.

For Katyusha, that reduces significantly the chance of a random hit, and on Stuka it would reduce retreat wipe potential (as demonstrated by VonIvan, and which has a heritage of precedence and problems from DoW2. Specifically the IG LGs offmap artillery crawl) and some more leeway to respond and move out of the linear AoE train.

As to Panzerwerfer, well, Ost T4 has been overpriced and univerally recognised as such, since forever. Didnt Panzerwerfer use to be T3?

Id say reduce the amount of rockets in a Katyusha barrage a bit, and increase a bit the time between rocket impacts on a Stuka.

For Katyusha, that reduces significantly the chance of a random hit, and on Stuka it would reduce retreat wipe potential (as demonstrated by VonIvan, and which has a heritage of precedence and problems from DoW2. Specifically the IG LGs offmap artillery crawl) and some more leeway to respond and move out of the linear AoE train.

As to Panzerwerfer, well, Ost T4 has been overpriced and univerally recognised as such, since forever. Didnt Panzerwerfer use to be T3?

Panzerwerfer used to be in T3, it resulted in PZ IV and panzerwerfers in every game, and still no T4 (even Elephant was in T4 back in the day)

Id say reduce the amount of rockets in a Katyusha barrage a bit, and increase a bit the time between rocket impacts on a Stuka.

For Katyusha, that reduces significantly the chance of a random hit, and on Stuka it would reduce retreat wipe potential (as demonstrated by VonIvan, and which has a heritage of precedence and problems from DoW2. Specifically the IG LGs offmap artillery crawl) and some more leeway to respond and move out of the linear AoE train.

As to Panzerwerfer, well, Ost T4 has been overpriced and univerally recognised as such, since forever. Didnt Panzerwerfer use to be T3?

The problem with reducing the katyusha's rockets is that the model that it is: The BM-13-16, is exactly that, it carries 16 rockets. "13" is the calibre of the rockets (130 mm) and "16" is the number of rockets its firing. Putting the number of rockets down makes it no longer a BM-13-16.

There were other models of Katyusha, but unless you want 12 310mm rockets falling on you it's best it stays at 16...

I'd be very happy to see the AoE or suchlike on the Katyusha nerfed into the ground, but the rockets fire all at once.

Marco: Yeah, a degree of historical accuracy was something that occured to me too after posting that.

Unfortunately, as is often the case, balance and practicality needs to go ahead of histoeical accuracy. Summa sumarrum, this is primarily a game, not a histoeical re-eanctment.

This is already demonstrated by the range at which Katyushas fire in this game, which is in and of itself, unrealistic, so the argument for historical accuracy on Katyushas fell already on that single initial point.

Perhaps then reduce the AoE of each rocket?

Panzerwerfer, you say?
Whats that?

Never seen or heard!

Panzerwerfer is underrated, its problem is its late appearance thx to german uber expensive T4, leading to absence.

Panzerwerfer used to be in T3, it resulted in PZ IV and panzerwerfers in every game, and still no T4

could be interesting to move the p4 to t4, improve stug III (60 range etc), move the panzerwerfer to t3, and maybe, add a pIII to t3 . And make t4 a little cheaper.

Panzerwerfer is underrated, its problem is its late appearance thx to german uber expensive T4, leading to absence.

I agree entirely.

Hence the hearkening to the fact it did infact use to be T3 (and how even then, T4 was still an expensive rarity).

Iirc Ostwind was substituted from T4 to T3, in exchange for the Panzerwerfer.
Was an interesting issue at the time, as both perform such a crucial function for Ost.
Ultimately, I think the need of AA was what prompted the change, despite a lacking in Ost indirect fire options.

Mortar HT managed somewhat to carry the slack, but also limited meta options for Ost.

Marco: Yeah, a degree of historical accuracy was something that occured to me too after posting that.

Unfortunately, as is often the case, balance and practicality needs to go ahead of histoeical accuracy. Summa sumarrum, this is primarily a game, not a histoeical re-eanctment.

This is already demonstrated by the range at which Katyushas fire in this game, which is in and of itself, unrealistic, so the argument for historical accuracy on Katyushas fell already on that single initial point.

Perhaps then reduce the AoE of each rocket?

True, but your suggestion of lessening the rockets is like putting a 75mm gun on a Tiger, it's the same chassis, but the armament is all wrong. People will notice.

It might be a game, and I don't doubt its not an historical reenactment, but it's based on history, it mightn't be a Tiger or something that everyone knows and loves, but the rules of getting the damn thing right are similar.

Anyway, I thought I put what you just suggested a moment ago...

I never used to see Katyushas, I'd say that meant they were underpowered and needed a buff.

But damn... Goddamn... All my base are belong to Katyusha.


I think:
Range nerf (so it can't sit in its base firing at FHQ)
damage nerf? One rocket can take out a full squad. It fires how many rockets?


I thought the idea of the Katyusha was it had a more prolonged burst than its german counterparts. That's why it was less accurate. Now it's accurate, heavy damage, long range, short cooldown.

I never used to see Katyushas, I'd say that meant they were underpowered and needed a buff.

I'd say they were a fair bit too weak, but another factor for never seeing Katyushas was because soviet T4 doesn't give you any attacking potential on any map that is not minsk pocket.

The Katy is too good now. Not only did every rocket get 2x damage, the AOE also went from 4 to 6. The change was pretty extreme. I don't think it got an accuracy buff though?

I would like to try the unit with stats somewhere in the middle of what it is now and what it used to be. 1,5x damage and 5 AoE. That might be enough to make the unit good without making it OP.

Fucking all artillery in this game is the dumbest fucking shit I've seen in an RTS. It's either stupidly moronic strong or stupidly moronic weak.

Examples; Stuka and Panzerwerfer

It's too fucking easy to use, you don't even need line of sight and it's just point+click and then move the artillery piece once you're done.

Here is the classical fail of Relic's "let's balance for 1v1 and ignore everything else totally" philosophy. Artillery is supposed to be good against stationary units and emplacements, and morons too stupid to move them around. In 1v1 games there is almost no static play where an artillery unit is even remotely useful, so they're buffed to the state of ridiculousness to entice people to buy them in 1v1, ignoring the fact that these units are already fine in team games.

And if you don't believe me, please, explain to me why the fuck the Stuka fires all of its shit in a long, straight line simultaneously? It's not even a creeping barrage, it's just an extremely long and powerful artillery strike designed to hit moving units.

Artillery should be long range and disruptive, not a nuclear weapon that can be used as a shotgun.

....Imo the best fix to the Katy mess would be giving it as long a cooldown as the Stuka.

THIS

[...]
And if you don't believe me, please, explain to me why the fuck the Stuka fires all of its shit in a long, straight line simultaneously? It's not even a creeping barrage, it's just an extremely long and powerful artillery strike designed to hit moving units.
[...]

It was designed this way so when you move your Rifles in a nice juicy cluster of units you get extra "rewards" when under Stuka barrage.



On the serious note I like VonIvan's idea of increasing Katyusha cooldown to match its new performance.