Login

russian armor

Week 3 Update to the Balance Mod

PAGES (8)down
18 May 2016, 22:30 PM
#61
avatar of Firesparks

Posts: 1930

Overall good changes. But I think that they should just nerf the M10 and Cromwell velocity, which are the only armoured vehicles that allow you to make a massive infantry crush. Also, the MG42 was a nice addition to the doctrines, hope they replace it with a nice ability...


I think you mean speed. velocity include both speed and direction.

and it's not the speed that's the problem, it's the rotational rate. 95% of infantry crushing is really the m10, t34 and cromwell rotating into infantry. Nerf the rotational speed if you want to nerf the crush.

the m10 and cromwell have a rotation rate of 38 degree per second, and the t34 have a rotation rate of 36 deg/s.

the far less crushing sherman, pz4, and panther have rotation rate of 34, 32, and 30. the panther is actually faster than the t34/76 but the lower rotation rate keep the panther from crushing infantry.
18 May 2016, 22:51 PM
#62
avatar of CntoCa

Posts: 16

Falls and obers vet 3 stll not working.
18 May 2016, 23:02 PM
#63
avatar of Sotjador

Posts: 37

I think you mean speed. velocity include both speed and direction.

and it's not the speed that's the problem, it's the rotational rate. 95% of infantry crushing is really the m10, t34 and cromwell rotating into infantry. Nerf the rotational speed if you want to nerf the crush.


I didn't know it was just the rotational speed that allowed the crush, but yes, if this is what allows the crush that's what should be nerfed.
18 May 2016, 23:13 PM
#64
avatar of What Doth Life?!
Patrion 27

Posts: 1664

Maybe now we can actually get some .50 HMG upgrades for M10 and Jackson?!
18 May 2016, 23:37 PM
#65
avatar of Muad'Dib

Posts: 368

Removing crushing is one of the best changes in recent past, if not especially impactful.

"It promotes blobbing" - that's like saying that removing the M42 AT gun from Soviets will promote KT spam. If crushing is a faction's main counter to blobs then there is a different problem altogether.

"It's unrealistic" - like, arguably, the removal of blizzards, reduced mine lethality, limit on heavy tanks, and many more. All good changes.

"Unit X needs it to be viable" - I don't work at Relic, but I would bet my left nut that crushing ability was never considered when tanks were being designed and balanced. If a tank is underperforming versus infantry then there are numerous ways to buff its performance in a consistent, intuitive way, like the T34 MGs buff.

"Suppressed/pinned infantry will screw with vehicle pathing" - a legit concern. If tanks can't be made to phase through infantry, then yes, I agree it's much better to keep infantry crush rather than completely screw up their pathing. Hopefully this is not an issue.

I've always felt that tank crushing is a gimmicky mechanic left over from the campaign, bringing some 'coolness' and 'realism' at the price of consistency and good gameplay. This is my subjective opinion and not everyone may see it this way, but I'd be really really happy if crushing is really (mostly) gone.
18 May 2016, 23:47 PM
#66
avatar of poop

Posts: 174

It took them over a year to look at how bad the T-34 was performing and make a minor adjustment.

I'm not in favor of nerfing it any more because the servers will shut down before they actually fix the fucking thing.
18 May 2016, 23:58 PM
#67
avatar of DAZ187

Posts: 466

how is crushing even a bad thing. it keeps the game intense and more micro intensive. just retreat.
19 May 2016, 00:14 AM
#68
avatar of luvnest
Strategist Badge
Patrion 39

Posts: 1094 | Subs: 20

why not just reduce the mobility of cromwells and M10s and leave infantry crushing as it is...
19 May 2016, 00:22 AM
#69
avatar of Cabreza

Posts: 656

I can understand why relic wanted to normalize the size of the Cromwell to bring it in line of the other medium tanks but what if they just reduced the size of medium tanks across the board instead?
19 May 2016, 00:33 AM
#70
avatar of Firesparks

Posts: 1930

jump backJump back to quoted post19 May 2016, 00:22 AMCabreza
I can understand why relic wanted to normalize the size of the Cromwell to bring it in line of the other medium tanks but what if they just reduced the size of medium tanks across the board instead?


why does the size on the cromwell need to be normalize? it's one of the characteristic that make the cromwell unique and decent into late game. It's like the higher armor on the panzer4.

and 23 is larger than the size 22 on the t34 and panzer4.
19 May 2016, 00:36 AM
#71
avatar of PanzerGeneralForever

Posts: 1072

My favorite mechanic to use in the game has been removed :(. RIP cromwells... Although now that i think about it, they also are removing shrecks from volks so it seems way more balanced that way...
19 May 2016, 00:37 AM
#72
avatar of PanzerGeneralForever

Posts: 1072



why does the size on the cromwell need to be normalize? it's one of the characteristic that make the cromwell unique and decent into late game. It's like the higher armor on the panzer4.

and 23 is larger than the size 22 on the t34 and panzer4.

i agree, i think 20 wouldve been a good number. 18 was way too small though. same size as the 222 lol
19 May 2016, 00:41 AM
#73
avatar of Firesparks

Posts: 1930


i agree, i think 20 wouldve been a good number. 18 was way too small though. same size as the 222 lol


and the the jpz4 is size 17. being bigger than 222 doesn't mean anything. the 222 is hardly known for its survivability until the hp buff.
19 May 2016, 00:45 AM
#74
avatar of Smaug

Posts: 366

Oh god, I am going to lose so many squads to bundle nades now.
if you have played vs cloaked commandos you know the pain of nuclear nades.
19 May 2016, 00:46 AM
#75
avatar of Smaug

Posts: 366

jump backJump back to quoted post19 May 2016, 00:14 AMluvnest
why not just reduce the mobility of cromwells and M10s and leave infantry crushing as it is...
I think thier moblity is vital vs heavier axis tanks.
19 May 2016, 00:47 AM
#76
avatar of Firesparks

Posts: 1930

jump backJump back to quoted post19 May 2016, 00:46 AMSmaug
I think thier moblity is vital vs heavier axis tanks.


you can probably nerf the rotational rate without hurting their mobility against axis tank.

the most important characteristic for a flanker is turret rotational speed, acceleration, top speed, and chassis rotational speed, in that order.

rotational speed is frankly not important (against other tank) as long as you have above a certain amount. the jackson's rotational speed is only 30.
19 May 2016, 01:35 AM
#77
avatar of Grittle

Posts: 179

I like most of these changes

I just hope they start buffing the underused commanders soon...
19 May 2016, 01:46 AM
#78
avatar of vietnamabc

Posts: 1063

Nobody complain crushing OP, using that is risky as hell and why does Relic needs to poke their nose in? Crushing is only good vs blobber, for lone group it maybe take out 1 or 2 members at most. If you want to give handheld AT a chance, maybe follow up some other suggestion from the forum like reducing reversing speed to 60% of forward speed.
19 May 2016, 01:55 AM
#79
avatar of Hikuran

Posts: 194

Im thinking a new ability for medium tank to compensate removal of Crush

Let's just call it Tank-Shock, a infantry/weapons-team targeted ability: tank will immediately charge to the target cause infantry to retreat, unretreatable units like AT or ISG will be crushed. Increase the chance of being critical damaged to 100%.
Require a running engine, some distance to the target and 50 muni to use. Vehicles will become temporally stationed after use of ability, regardless of success or not
RKT43 can choose to retreat manually, units in retreating will not be crushed
19 May 2016, 02:02 AM
#80
avatar of Rappy

Posts: 526

Nobody complain crushing OP, using that is risky as hell and why does Relic needs to poke their nose in? Crushing is only good vs blobber, for lone group it maybe take out 1 or 2 members at most. If you want to give handheld AT a chance, maybe follow up some other suggestion from the forum like reducing reversing speed to 60% of forward speed.

1 or 2 models? Ha! Have you played this game?

I can kill all but the last one or two men from at least three squads with a cromwell in just a few seconds. Perhaps you don't know how to use it well?

Where is the risk? A Cromwell can literally run rings around german infantry.
PAGES (8)down
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

838 users are online: 1 member and 837 guests
Rosbone
1 post in the last 24h
7 posts in the last week
39 posts in the last month
Registered members: 49062
Welcome our newest member, Mclatc16
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM