Login

russian armor

Stuka a bit too much

PAGES (8)down
29 May 2015, 10:48 AM
#64
avatar of HazardousKing

Posts: 32

jeez guys, getting a bit emotional, now we are planning marriages for every one?, I was asking on your opinions on the aircraft to see if anyone notices the aircraft, if it truly does deflection damage, I must ask two questions. 1) why does deflection damage do so much from what I saw, it seemed similar to half a decent hit on one. 2)why does only this vehicle(from what I have seem) deal deflection damage yet high pen vehicles e.g. jackson and panther. not deal deflection damage.
29 May 2015, 10:53 AM
#65
avatar of Katitof

Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8

@HazardousKing
Stuka deals 120 damage and 80 deflection damage.

It used to be underpowered for a long time, but relic being relic ascended it to a god tier and now it destroys medium armor and AT guns in 1 pass and heavies in 2.

Previously only HE tanks used deflection damage, old ISU, very old IS-2, KV-2, brummbar(which have deflection damage f 50%). Now its exclusively brummbar and stuka.

Deflection damage was supposed to increase its usefulness, but that plus cost decrease plus improved tracking on armor plus decent AoE murdering infantry made it most OP loiter ability in game.

You want to use anti aircraft units? If they won't shoot it down on approach, you will have loitering plane and a wreckage of AA unit.
29 May 2015, 11:38 AM
#66
avatar of vasa1719

Posts: 2635 | Subs: 4

Permanently Banned
OP things, need nerf.
31 May 2015, 10:29 AM
#67
avatar of Charlie_Kingsgrove

Posts: 8

So agree with this threat, Stuka strafe took out a sherman from the front as is was backing the fuck away, meanwhile my team mates where calling in P-47 strikes that where doing SFA! its way to powerful for its cost
31 May 2015, 12:04 PM
#68
avatar of Iron Emperor

Posts: 1653

So is the Jackson too cost efficient
31 May 2015, 12:06 PM
#69
avatar of QueenRatchet123

Posts: 2280 | Subs: 2

Permanently Banned
So is the Jackson too cost efficient


Yet to be proven
31 May 2015, 12:12 PM
#70
avatar of Alexzandvar

Posts: 4951 | Subs: 1

So is the Jackson too cost efficient


It has to be because USF lacks any other viable AT.

Yet to be proven


The Jackson is intentionally designed to be hyper cost efficient. All USF vehicles are.
31 May 2015, 12:33 PM
#71
avatar of QueenRatchet123

Posts: 2280 | Subs: 2

Permanently Banned

The Jackson is intentionally designed to be hyper cost efficient. All USF vehicles are.


didn't know you were working at relic when this unit was designed
31 May 2015, 12:58 PM
#73
avatar of Alexzandvar

Posts: 4951 | Subs: 1



didn't know you were working at relic when this unit was designed


It has to be because USF lacks any other viable AT.


Obviously Relic intends USF players to only use Zooks and 57mm for AT despite both being trash :snfMarcus:
31 May 2015, 14:04 PM
#74
avatar of dreamerdude
Benefactor 392

Posts: 374

i love the AT gun, it's very beautiful
31 May 2015, 14:40 PM
#75
avatar of ZombiFrancis

Posts: 2742

If a player goes all-in on Jacksons and their opponent goes all-in on Tigers, then the Jacksons are going to be damned efficient.

Just like vCoH M10s were (usually with AWM) against Tigers or the KT.

If a player puts everything into Jacksons and their opponent starts spamming panzergrens, then the Jacksons are going to be virtually useless. They'd just be taking up pop cap if the crews couldn't just hop out.
31 May 2015, 17:47 PM
#76
avatar of RobocopHighlander

Posts: 55

when you can so easly trade 120 munis on this stupid loiter strafe to kill at least 1 jackson if not more, it is hard to argue that the jackson is "too cost efficient". Axis players aren't happy with a resource trade of 120 munis for a minimum of 350 mp 125 fuel?

A lot of the offmap skillplane abilities are stupid - it goes against most basic principles of the game if you can just kill your opponents units with no micro outside of engagements with the click of a button and the cost of a few munis.

The strafe does more damage in less time than the p47 that axis players love to complain about (while targeting tanks with much less health), and costs half as many munitions. Even when you are in the process of dodging the strafe, it adjusts its aim to hit the edges of your tank and still does full damage. How is there even an argument about this?
31 May 2015, 18:05 PM
#77
avatar of squippy

Posts: 484


A lot of the offmap skillplane abilities are stupid - it goes against most basic principles of the game if you can just kill your opponents units with no micro outside of engagements with the click of a button and the cost of a few munis.


Nonsense. You seem to be forgetting the "strategy" part of RTS. Managing resources such that you can kill your enemy's decisive weapon is definitely part of the game, and always has been.

I understand why competitive players fetishise micro, but to claim that any facets that don't rely entirely on micro contradict the "principles of the game" is patently ridiculous.
31 May 2015, 18:34 PM
#78
avatar of RobocopHighlander

Posts: 55

jump backJump back to quoted post31 May 2015, 18:05 PMsquippy


Nonsense. You seem to be forgetting the "strategy" part of RTS. Managing resources such that you can kill your enemy's decisive weapon is definitely part of the game, and always has been.

I understand why competitive players fetishise micro, but to claim that any facets that don't rely entirely on micro contradict the "principles of the game" is patently ridiculous.


The "strategy" part of an RTS is that when you fail to kill enemy units in any engagements, you should be able to kill them outside of engagements? Good strategy - seems legit.

Managing resources should be about how you spend them on actual units. I'm fine with offmap abilities playing supporting roles to augment your units but not as a replacement for them or the main damage dealer for your army.
31 May 2015, 18:49 PM
#79
avatar of Bulgakov

Posts: 987

jump backJump back to quoted post31 May 2015, 18:05 PMsquippy


Nonsense. You seem to be forgetting the "strategy" part of RTS. Managing resources such that you can kill your enemy's decisive weapon is definitely part of the game, and always has been.

I understand why competitive players fetishise micro, but to claim that any facets that don't rely entirely on micro contradict the "principles of the game" is patently ridiculous.


I partly agree, resource management to use offmaps to supplement your micro/macro is absolutely a part of the game.

Still, I think that when offmaps massively/completely ignore micro response, that's bad design. it should always be possible to dodge those abilities I think. Otherwise they can become a kind of "debug/delete" button.
31 May 2015, 22:41 PM
#80
avatar of squippy

Posts: 484



The "strategy" part of an RTS is that when you fail to kill enemy units in any engagements, you should be able to kill them outside of engagements? Good strategy - seems legit.


Of course. Not only is that entirely realistic as a depiction of warfare, it's a well established tradition in wargaming. I certainly know off-map abilities were present in post-Vietnam wargaming, but I would assume they appeared earlier.

Civilization, to take the almost polar opposite example, is also a strategy game, albeit turn based, but also one in which actual units are secondary to the infrastructural and economic decisions that preceded them. When you say that the game should be this or that, you really have no leg to stand on; all you are really doing is expressing your preference, to which you are perfectly entitled. But there is no particular reason that this or any game must follow your preferences.
PAGES (8)down
0 user is browsing this thread:

Livestreams

unknown 1
United States 167
New Zealand 12
unknown 6

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

826 users are online: 826 guests
0 post in the last 24h
5 posts in the last week
33 posts in the last month
Registered members: 49126
Welcome our newest member, Babystoreuk
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM