Login

russian armor

Cruzz's The More You Know

PAGES (58)down
9 Jan 2018, 17:43 PM
#1021
avatar of ZombiFrancis

Posts: 2742

I wonder if focus fire simply targets an entity, whereas no focus fire targets the squad. Both would apply damage to individual entities.
One is attacking and targeting (and missing) one entity while the other is targeting all target able entities on range?

When testing multiple targets were they in the same squad or separate squads standing next to each other?
9 Jan 2018, 18:07 PM
#1022
avatar of Tobis
Senior Strategist Badge
Donator 11

Posts: 2307 | Subs: 4

jump backJump back to quoted post9 Jan 2018, 15:30 PMVipper

Maybe remove it from weapon that are HMG and be done with it?

Even if we don't understand exactly how it works, I do think it's a cool effect. You're spraying a machinegun into a group of soldiers. It's a bit silly if it misses everyone else. If an mg is too OP/UP you can just adjust the base stats.

IMO no focus fire is actually very strong in the early game before healing comes out. With a kubel fighting cons I very often see super low health full model squads, like 30% health with 6 men that they have to retreat. Without healing it's practically like beating the squad twice, you can force them off again with anything easily. I'd much rather have that outcome than pick off a few models that get replaced. Capping power and field presence is more important early game.


I'll do some testing later when I get home, it appears to be deeper than I thought.
9 Jan 2018, 18:42 PM
#1023
avatar of ZombiFrancis

Posts: 2742

jump backJump back to quoted post9 Jan 2018, 18:07 PMTobis

Capping power and field presence is THE game.


FTFY ;)
9 Jan 2018, 18:46 PM
#1024
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post9 Jan 2018, 18:07 PMTobis

Even if we don't understand exactly how it works, I do think it's a cool effect...

Being cool is not enough for keeping it.

There need to consistency on game mechanics. If a weapon profiles has it than all weapon in that profile need to have it, so that is consistency in unit behavior.

That is one of current problems of the game now. Instead of keeping rules that one can understand and learn everything is "balanced" in individual basis.

And that goes even to the simplest things:
It used to be that, reinforcement cost followed a rule now half the units follow it, half of them do not.

It used to be that, reinforcement time was related to reinforcement cost now half the units follow it, the other half do not.

Chancing things on an individual basis unnecessarily complicates. One should firs look for global changes and then for individual ones.
9 Jan 2018, 19:18 PM
#1025
avatar of Stug life

Posts: 4474

jump backJump back to quoted post9 Jan 2018, 18:46 PMVipper

Being cool is not enough for keeping it.

There need to consistency on game mechanics. If a weapon profiles has it than all weapon in that profile need to have it, so that is consistency in unit behavior.

That is one of current problems of the game now. Instead of keeping rules that one can understand and learn everything is "balanced" in individual basis.

And that goes even to the simplest things:
It used to be that, reinforcement cost followed a rule now half the units follow it, half of them do not.

It used to be that, reinforcement time was related to reinforcement cost now half the units follow it, the other half do not.

Chancing things on an individual basis unnecessarily complicates. One should firs look for global changes and then for individual ones.
i think hmg have it off cause they can spread the supression ,by hitting all the model, to the others squads
10 Jan 2018, 06:31 AM
#1026
avatar of Tobis
Senior Strategist Badge
Donator 11

Posts: 2307 | Subs: 4

jump backJump back to quoted post9 Jan 2018, 18:46 PMVipper

Being cool is not enough for keeping it.

There need to consistency on game mechanics. If a weapon profiles has it than all weapon in that profile need to have it, so that is consistency in unit behavior.

Pretty much every automatic infantry weapon has it except for lmgs.
10 Jan 2018, 09:00 AM
#1027
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post10 Jan 2018, 06:31 AMTobis

Pretty much every automatic infantry weapon has it except for lmgs.

Kubel has it, m3, WC, WC51, M20 do not have it.
Thompson does not have it and so on.

In addition the affects of this feature are creating issues with units performance.

For instance:
Bars make units like Pathfinders that use scoped weapons to be able to critical more often since the damage is spread across entities.

Kubel is worse at killing model of the Soviet sniper team.


Complicated features like spreading damage (especially without in game information) should only be there if they serve a particular purpose and if they are consistent. Else one complicates the system for no good reason and that is bad design.
21 May 2018, 14:31 PM
#1028
avatar of Cruzz

Posts: 1221 | Subs: 41

Updated the html file with the latest patch stats, filtered out some completely unused dummy weapons from being displayed and added a couple of bits of extra shown stats

  • Popcap for the entire squad with a faction appropriate max crew size, soviet team weapons crewed by other factions would be -2 popcap.
  • Under AOE, 80 dmg radius to show how far away the aoe will oneshot infantry (in default cover)
  • Tracking, to show horizontal turret speed and left/right rotation. Fire cone angle is how much leeway there is for the unit to fire even if not directly pointed at the opponent
  • Suppression, for weapons that have a non-zero amount as a default
  • Removed the kinda broken cover picking option (because I never applied it to the accordion stats, only to the graph calculation)

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B7gwy65JLbSRMEJ3M2ZPandMMW8
21 May 2018, 16:09 PM
#1029
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1

Great job once more, well done.

Does the new modifier for mortars vs buildingas affect how much damage the structure gets?
21 May 2018, 17:15 PM
#1030
avatar of Cruzz

Posts: 1221 | Subs: 41

jump backJump back to quoted post21 May 2018, 16:09 PMVipper
Great job once more, well done.

Does the new modifier for mortars vs buildingas affect how much damage the structure gets?


Never tested it, gut feeling would be a "no" (it's not like the garrison is in garrison cover), but it's not like it would be out of the question for it to actually affect it too. If I still remember I'll test it the next time I'm messing around with the mod tools.

The entire building damage system is largely a mystery to me, only thing that has always seemed consistent is that the bigger the radius of your aoe the more damage you'll do, any other modifiers seem largely meaningless in comparison.

Brit base howitzers have horrid modifiers for building_damage and very sharp aoe falloff and a 0.25 modifier against garrison but they still demolish buildings way better than other 160 damage attacks from tanks for instance thanks to the 6 radius.
21 May 2018, 17:33 PM
#1031
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post21 May 2018, 17:15 PMCruzz


Never tested it, gut feeling would be a "no" (it's not like the garrison is in garrison cover), but it's not like it would be out of the question for it to actually affect it too. If I still remember I'll test it the next time I'm messing around with the mod tools.

The entire building damage system is largely a mystery to me, only thing that has always seemed consistent is that the bigger the radius of your aoe the more damage you'll do, any other modifiers seem largely meaningless in comparison.

Brit base howitzers have horrid modifiers for building_damage and very sharp aoe falloff and a 0.25 modifier against garrison but they still demolish buildings way better than other 160 damage attacks from tanks for instance thanks to the 6 radius.

That has to do with panels. Each building has a number of panels as far as I know so explosion with big aoe damage hit more panels.

I might be wrong here but I since the AOE of damage mortars has gone down houses should be able to take more hits and from the little games I played it does not seem to be the case.
25 May 2018, 00:00 AM
#1032
avatar of Cruzz

Posts: 1221 | Subs: 41

Minor update, added in the missing USF 76mm Sherman and Brit 17 pounder emplacements to the file.

Tested the garrison cover damage modifier, it doesn't affect the damage you do to the building.
25 May 2018, 08:40 AM
#1033
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post25 May 2018, 00:00 AMCruzz
Minor update, added in the missing USF 76mm Sherman and Brit 17 pounder emplacements to the file.

Tested the garrison cover damage modifier, it doesn't affect the damage you do to the building.

thanks for checking.
30 Jun 2018, 15:11 PM
#1034
avatar of vasa1719

Posts: 2635 | Subs: 4

Permanently Banned
Did ostheer and OKW p4 have different like AI, i mean accuracy for gun and damage for mgs ?
2 Jul 2018, 13:32 PM
#1035
avatar of Tobis
Senior Strategist Badge
Donator 11

Posts: 2307 | Subs: 4

Did ostheer and OKW p4 have different like AI, i mean accuracy for gun and damage for mgs ?

Yes, OKW p4 has much much better scatter veterancy and better mgs.
7 Jul 2018, 01:25 AM
#1036
avatar of IncendiaryRounds:)

Posts: 1527

Permanently Banned
So did the balance team actually implement the thing about giving the Sherman more "reliable" HE from 2 patches ago? Because the Sherman is the last tank that needs better AI. What I find demoralizing is that the Sherman does better damage to inf on the move than the Ost p4 does when stationary. I think USF deserves the 0.75 vs tanks but against infantry it should be 0.5 like everyone else. Like Tobis said, the OKW p4 has better AI.
19 Sep 2018, 20:45 PM
#1037
avatar of LoopDloop

Posts: 3053

Is the easy 8 the only tank that doesn’t have scatter on the move?

Also, didn’t they patch out the infantry sections horrible moving accuracy or is that still there?
19 Sep 2018, 21:04 PM
#1038
avatar of RoastinGhost

Posts: 416 | Subs: 1

Is the easy 8 the only tank that doesn’t have scatter on the move?

Also, didn’t they patch out the infantry sections horrible moving accuracy or is that still there?


I'm away from my gaming computer right now, but the Easy 8 does not (or maybe did not) have movement scatter. They added some in the December Balance Patch, but I'm not sure if that made it to live.

About the infantry section moving accuracy; kind of. It was very bad at .25, and now it's slightly less bad at .35.
19 Sep 2018, 21:29 PM
#1039
avatar of LoopDloop

Posts: 3053



I'm away from my gaming computer right now, but the Easy 8 does not (or maybe did not) have movement scatter. They added some in the December Balance Patch, but I'm not sure if that made it to live.

About the infantry section moving accuracy; kind of. It was very bad at .25, and now it's slightly less bad at .35.

Huh. .35 is around the norm for bolt action rifles though right?
19 Sep 2018, 21:54 PM
#1040
avatar of ShadowLinkX37
Director of Moderation Badge

Posts: 4183 | Subs: 4


Huh. .35 is around the norm for bolt action rifles though right?


Kar 98 is 0.5, M1 Garand is 0.6, I believe the mosin is also 0.5. Essentially don't run and gun with sections. And the easy 8 does have scatter on the move. All USF tanks currently have 0.75 moving accuracy debuff while moving.
PAGES (58)down
2 users are browsing this thread: 2 guests

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

917 users are online: 917 guests
0 post in the last 24h
12 posts in the last week
26 posts in the last month
Registered members: 49989
Welcome our newest member, LegalMetrologyConsul
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM