Login

russian armor

Hammer gammon are (still) too expensive.

5 Mar 2016, 12:32 PM
#41
avatar of general_gawain

Posts: 919

Satchel cost 60, and its locked behind an specialist unit, thats why its better than gammon bomb


Gammon is T4 and its locked behind a specialization, thats why its worse than satchel? :nahnah: There is always a counterargument ;)
5 Mar 2016, 12:45 PM
#42
avatar of Myself

Posts: 677

Once more comparing Gammon and satchel is quite pointless.

Different design intent and different timing.

Satchel is an AI/anti-garrison/anti-fortification/anti-structure device that can be used against vehicles.

Gammon is anti-vehicle device that can be used for AI/anti-garrison/anti-fortification purposes.
5 Mar 2016, 13:02 PM
#43
avatar of Pablonano

Posts: 297



Gammon is T4 and its locked behind a specialization, thats why its worse than satchel? :nahnah: There is always a counterargument ;)
its still not on a specialized unit, but in the main infantry, an specialized unit should always be better at his job than the all around ones
5 Mar 2016, 15:01 PM
#44
avatar of Mr.Smith

Posts: 2636 | Subs: 17

jump backJump back to quoted post5 Mar 2016, 12:45 PMMyself
Once more comparing Gammon and satchel is quite pointless.

Different design intent and different timing.

Satchel is an AI/anti-garrison/anti-fortification/anti-structure device that can be used against vehicles.

Gammon is anti-vehicle device that can be used for AI/anti-garrison/anti-fortification purposes.


In order to find a more appropriate price, we need to compare it to something else which is already in the game.

We have already established that the gammon bomb is strictly inferior in terms of anti-garrison/anti-infantry to the satchel charge.

When it comes to AT performance, we have the following abilities to compare it with:

1) AT snares (25-ish munitions):
+ significantly longer range
+ no aiming required
+ "permanent" engine damage
- require 75% health on target
- deal less damage (but always hits)

2) AEC treadshot (45-ish munitions)
+ 50 range
+ snares the vehicle for 20 seconds (yes, 20...)
- requires both shots to land
- requires a Vet1 AEC

3) Target weak point (45-ish munitions)
+ 60 range
+ also stuns the vehicle for 3 secs (can't use abilities/fire back)
+ requires no other units to finish the job; the pak40 can do it by itself
- requires Vet1 Pak40

4) Guard button (45-ish munitions)
+ 40-ish range
+ instant
+ blinds vehicle
- only slows vehicle
- deals no damage
- requires Guards with DP-28 to use (weakest LMG in the game)

5) Gammon bomb (85-ish munitions)
+ second immobilize time
- temporary debuff; requires other units to exploit
- 12 range (requires a long-range unit to come to close range)
- damage only sufficient to kill a kubel (or bring a 222 to 40%-ish HP)
- long aim time + priming time

I don't remember the exact numbers, but I always use these abilities when the opportunity presents itself. None of these abilities give the enemy tank any other form of counterplay except for "don't sit in the firing arc for more than 1 second".

Now, before somebody says "Oh, but Gammon bomb is BOTH AI and AT, therefore the cost should be additive", you can never ever use a single gammon bomb to fulfil both roles at the same time. Therefore:
- The cost of the gammon bomb cannot be lower than the best role it performs
- The cost should not be significantly higher than that either. Each use of the ability serves exactly one purpose (either AI or AT)

If you are still not convinced:


Ergo, a 45-50-ish price tag for the Gammon bomb is neither too cheap nor too expensive.
5 Mar 2016, 16:32 PM
#45
avatar of Myself

Posts: 677


...
In order to find a more appropriate price, we need to compare it to something else which is already in the game.

We have already established that the gammon bomb is strictly inferior in terms of anti-garrison/anti-infantry to the satchel charge.
...

I have simply have to disagree...

Gammon bomb do the job of the satchel charge as an anti-garrison device adequately and better than most grenades available to mainline infantry.

The main difference here is that Penal troops are specialized anti-garrison troops and that is why their satchel is so cheap.

Tommies are all around troops that can be armed with lmg, Piats, built trenches, sandbags and even emplacements (doctrinal)or equipped with AT grenades (doctrinal). By having more utility their gammon bomb either need to more expensive or allot less effective...


When it comes to AT performance, we have the following abilities to compare it with:


I don't think that this is the correct approach...One should be considering the consequence of a cheap Gammon bomb. A cheaper Gammon bomb would make it more spamable.

That would make UKF blobs more dangerous vs vehicles. Imagine a slow vehicle or a vehicle with engine damage making a ideal target for 3 tommies squad that can stun lock it with gammon bomb and destroy it with Piats regardless of it armor due to gammon high penetration and Piat deflection damage.

Cheap Gammon bomb in their current performance would basically promote infantry blobbing, and reduce the need to make medium armor.

As I have explained before imo if the price of Gammon is to be reduced its AI effectiveness, and its ability to stun should also be reduced.


5 Mar 2016, 23:47 PM
#46
avatar of Firesparks

Posts: 1930

jump backJump back to quoted post5 Mar 2016, 12:01 PMMyself
Gammon is dodge-able never argued differently and that is why I described it as a gamble in it current form...

I only argued that if it to become cheaper and more spammable it should also become weaker. Less investment less rewards...


first of all, the satchel maintain its infantry OHK power at the outer radius of its AOE. In the absence of heavy cover, a satchel will deals 85 damage at a minimal, meaning that it will wipe infantry if it hits. the only way to save your infantry from a satchel is to dodge it entirely or bunker down in heavy.

by comparison, the hammer gammon bomb fall to 50 damage by 4.5 meter. This means that the Gammon have smaller ohk radius but a bigger wounding radius.

That would make UKF blobs more dangerous vs vehicles. Imagine a slow vehicle or a vehicle with engine damage making a ideal target for 3 tommies squad that can stun lock it with gammon bomb and destroy it with Piats regardless of it armor due to gammon high penetration and Piat deflection damage.


A tank with a damaged engine has already screwed up. Either it hits a mine or got hit by a Sov/US At nade. A slow and heavy tank like the King tiger would probably be vulnerable to the gammon bomb, but subverting the thick armor on the axis heavy seems to be the british atw's specialty.

The tommies would still need to get pretty close to a king tiger to throw the gammon bomb. 12 meter is farther than the satchel, but still pretty short. It's the difference between the last place and second to last place.
6 Mar 2016, 18:01 PM
#47
avatar of NEVEC

Posts: 708 | Subs: 1

You can argue or not but gammon bomb is not effective for it price in any case compared to grenades, democharges, satchels etc. It's just overpriced and bad, easily avoidable by both infantry and vechiles, completely ineffective against bunkers, caches, okw emplacements etc.

Instead of gammon bomb i would prefer mills bomb without research cost. Gammon bomb since it useless added as 15 fuel upgrade. Do you like my idea relic?
1 user is browsing this thread: 1 guest

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

347 users are online: 347 guests
0 post in the last 24h
5 posts in the last week
33 posts in the last month
Registered members: 49184
Welcome our newest member, Eastman04
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM