Incoming received accuracy for OKW units
Posts: 640 | Subs: 1
By the time Obers or Jaegers hit the field (especially Obers) there will be loads of weapons on both sides that just don't give a fuck about the received accuracy modifier.
And, as said before, armour is useless against tank guns and indirect fire. But then, so is received accuracy - infantry has such low size anyway the tanks almost always "miss" and then hit them through scatter.
I don't think anyone expects Obers to soak up tank fire, though. The problem, I think, comes from massed upgraded US infantry tearing them a new one at medium and long ranges, which just doesn't "feel" right. Against conscripts, guards, vanilla Riflemen etc. the Obers are in fact a bitch to get rid of.
Posts: 577
Uhm against small arms received acc only matter at long range, whereas armour is always relavent no matter the range. It is only against tanks shell that received acc modifier really counts.
No, it does matter. There are only very few units that can get even close to 100% accuracy, even at close range. It's really annoying if people spread false information.
There is basically not much difference between armor and received accuracy just like Shepherd said. Gameplay wise they perform almost the same. One means the enemy misses, the other means the shot deals no damage. The only important difference is vs small arms weapon with penetration above one - The unit with armor will take more damage than the one with reduced incoming accuracy.
If penetration >= armor, the shot will always deal damage, else with a (penetration/armor) chance. Whereas the accuracy is for most units the way that they cannot reach 100% accuracy.
The major difference is visual. Obersoldaten, Fallschirmjäger and such are not wearing armor. Shocks on the other hand are wearing body armor. Having a shot impact on an unarmored soldier and dealing no damage looks weird. The change had almost no impact gameplay wise, but improved the looks.
Posts: 752
Additive or multiplicative?
Posts: 640 | Subs: 1
Posts: 950 | Subs: 1
The only infantry that can reach over 100% accuracy at some range is...wait for it...vet2 or higher axis infantry. And even there it's mostly just Obersoldaten kars, Grenadiers when supported by an officer, Pgren G43s when supported by officer etc.
the point here is, besides obersoldaten, this requires vet infantry to be buffed by an officer.
soviets can do the same thing with fhqs. non vet shocks, guards (98.5% accuracy without vet), maxim, dshk, and vet penals can all exceed 100%.
then in team games you have vet rifles, m2hb, non vet pathfinders, non vet paratroopers etc.
Posts: 752
Multiplicative.
I see.
Then isn't armor a stronger modifier when in cover, since its additive, than accuracy reduction?
Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8
the point here is, besides obersoldaten, this requires vet infantry to be buffed by an officer.
soviets can do the same thing with fhqs. non vet shocks, guards (98.5% accuracy without vet), maxim, dshk, and vet penals can all exceed 100%.
then in team games you have vet rifles, m2hb, non vet pathfinders, non vet paratroopers etc.
FHQ gives accuracy modifier?
Wasn't it damage modifier?
Posts: 34
Permanently BannedI agree, Obersoldaten for such an expensive and elite squad that comes into a game when all enemy infantry has a few ranks already - drop too easily.
i dont know how you use them, but they kill any infantry as long as you keep the range. i build obers in every game and they always do a very good job, hell 2 squads of them even counter maxims, and snipers melt to them aswell
obers are fine, received accuracy is good as it is
Posts: 1221 | Subs: 41
FHQ gives accuracy modifier?
Wasn't it damage modifier?
Accuracy on infantry and MGs. Damage on mortars, atguns, artillery.
That said, OKW and their one-hit-guarantees-collapse stukas removed the few remaining FHQs you might have seen from the game already. Even the wehrmacht officer is 50 times more likely to be seen than the FHQ buff now.
Posts: 752
If reduced accuracy is multiplicative with cover modifiers.
Isnt armor the better option atleast vs small arms?
Posts: 2693 | Subs: 1
If armor is additive with cover modifiers.
If reduced accuracy is multiplicative with cover modifiers.
Isnt armor the better option atleast vs small arms?
Armor is just a modifier in itself. There is no difference other than for weapons that ignore armor. Which one is better against small arms fire is mostly dependent on the actual values. 2 armor beats 0.75 received accuracy for example.
For armor it's: chance to hit * cover modifier * (penetration/armor); where the last modifier is removed when penetration > armor
For accuracy received modifier it's: chance to hit * cover modifier * accuracy modifier.
Accuracy received modifiers are better against basically everything. The only time this modifier does not help is when the above equation is >1. This can happen when you have say, your obersoldaten in red cover against a vetted up guard squad that is standing next to a FHQ.
Posts: 1158
Is the received accuracy being applied correctly to falls? I seem to be killing them pretty easy with conscripts. Not that I feel OKW needs any tougher infantry, but some of these fall squads are dying so fast it doesn't feel right to make them cost 400mp (I don't know if that's right, I haven't checked but I've read people say it is).
I think there are some interesting ways that armor can be put in the game without it being OP. Such as being able to tone down some weapons (like LMGS) towards unarmored units (because it's a little stupid right now), and instead provide value in penetration.
Posts: 752
So at its core (disregarding the magnitude of the armor or the accuracy reduction for the moment) armor is better vs small arms, because it sits ontop of the cover modifier.
Vs other things that also are affected by the accuracy received modifier, yes, that is superior to armor, for sure.
But my point being that vs small arms, it seems to me that the armor modifier is a more effective option.
Posts: 640 | Subs: 1
If armor is additive with cover modifiers.
If reduced accuracy is multiplicative with cover modifiers
I am not sure what you mean by armour being "additive". What value is summed with another value where? Armour is used AFTER a bullet calculates as a hit (and therefore has already rolled against the cover modifiers). This new roll behaves multiplicatively, in that armour further reduces a chance to receive damage, on top of the cover reducing the chance to even get hit. Nowhere is the value of armour "added" to the cover modifiers, that I know of. Feel free to correct me if I am wrong.
Posts: 1158
Posts: 577
A unit in cover gets only hit 50% of the times.
Now we have the two possibilities, 1.5 armor or 66% incoming accuracy modifier. Both are the same (1/1.5 = 0.66).
50% * 66% = 33% Chance to hit and
1 / 1 = 100% chance to deal damage upon hit, resulting in total 33%.
50% * 100% = 50% Chance to hit and
1 / 1.5 = 66% chance to deal damage upon hit, resulting in total of 33%.
There is literally no difference. None. 0. Nada.
Posts: 665
Posts: 752
Example, made up numbers:
A unit in cover gets only hit 50% of the times.
Now we have the two possibilities, 1.5 armor or 66% incoming accuracy modifier. Both are the same (1/1.5 = 0.66).
50% * 66% = 33% Chance to hit and
1 / 1 = 100% chance to deal damage upon hit, resulting in total 33%.
50% * 100% = 50% Chance to hit and
1 / 1.5 = 66% chance to deal damage upon hit, resulting in total of 33%.
There is literally no difference. None. 0. Nada.
I see.
How about in conjunction with cover modifiers?
Posts: 577
Example, made up numbers:
A unit has 71% chance to hit another.
This other unit is in cover, getting a 70% cover bonus.
Hitting this unit therefor is 71% * 70% = ~50%
Now we have the two possibilities, 1.5 armor or 66% incoming accuracy modifier. Both are the same (1/1.5 = 0.66).
50% * 66% = 33% Chance to hit and
1 / 1 = 100% chance to deal damage upon hit, resulting in total 33%.
50% * 100% = 50% Chance to hit and
1 / 1.5 = 66% chance to deal damage upon hit, resulting in total of 33%.
There is literally no difference. None. 0. Nada.
Posts: 2070
Livestreams
12 | |||||
11 | |||||
1 | |||||
770 |
Ladders Top 10
-
#Steam AliasWL%Streak
- 1.831222.789+37
- 2.34957.860+14
- 3.1109614.644+10
- 4.608220.734+2
- 5.276108.719+27
- 6.305114.728+1
- 7.916405.693-2
- 8.722440.621+4
- 9.261137.656+2
- 10.1041674.607-2
Replay highlight
- cblanco ★
- 보드카 중대
- VonManteuffel
- Heartless Jäger
Board Info
8 posts in the last week
34 posts in the last month
Welcome our newest member, jhonnycena0400
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM