Login

russian armor

[week 3 may preview] alternative to crush removal

19 May 2016, 19:21 PM
#1
avatar of Firesparks

Posts: 1930

while I don't hate the removal of crush, I have a less drastic alternative solution.

Right now, the most effective crusher in the game are the cromwell, t34/76, and the m10 wolverine. While most people seems to think it's their top speed and acceleration that make them effective crusher, in truth it's actually their chassis rotational rate.

95% of crushes are actually the vehicle rotating into the infantry at close range, or the vehicle turning on a dime into the infantry. the cromwell and the m10 both have a rotational rate of 38 deg/s, while the t34/76 have a rotational rate of 36 deg/s. By comparison, the sherman, panzer4, and the panther only have a rotational rate of 34 deg/s, 32 deg/s, and 30 deg/s.

Then, to nerf the cromwell/t34/m10's ability to crush infantry without removing the mechanic entirely, the best way is to nerf their chassis rotational rate. From personal testing, giving them a rotational rate of 32deg/s seems to removing most cases of infantry crushes. 34 deg/s is another possible value, but there will still be some crushes left.

addendum: forgot to list valentine as one of the good crusher. its got the same movement stats as the cromwell.
19 May 2016, 19:29 PM
#2
avatar of Obersoldat

Posts: 393

I totally agree with you +1
19 May 2016, 19:32 PM
#3
avatar of PencilBatRation

Posts: 794

That would be a double Nerf; mobility and crush.
19 May 2016, 19:37 PM
#4
avatar of Vuther
Senior Moderator Badge

Posts: 3103 | Subs: 1

While a fairly logical idea, I am entirely certain doing this would cause ragequits over pathfinding screwups to increase exponentially.
19 May 2016, 19:40 PM
#5
avatar of Firesparks

Posts: 1930

That would be a double Nerf; mobility and crush.


aside from infantry crushing, chassis rotational rate isn't that important. The most important characteristic of a flanker is turret rotational rate, acceleration, top speed, and chassis rotational rate, in that order.

As long as your chassis rotational is above a certain amount, you don't need an insane amount of it. The jackson only have 30 degrees/ per second.

it's still less drastic than removing crush entirely.
19 May 2016, 19:58 PM
#6
avatar of EtherealDragon

Posts: 1890 | Subs: 1

+1 to OP - I believe Miragefla is testing something similar in his Mod now.

I feel like the threat of crushing is important to keep otherwise AT blobs are a bit too easy to pull off. In my experience crushing isn't particularly gamebreaking (M10 and Cromwell aside)
19 May 2016, 20:02 PM
#7
avatar of Myself

Posts: 677

Valentine is also extremely good at crushing...
19 May 2016, 20:04 PM
#8
avatar of ferwiner
Donator 11

Posts: 2885

jump backJump back to quoted post19 May 2016, 20:02 PMMyself
Valentine is also extremely good at crushing...


Valentine shouldn't get any nerfs. I would be amazed to see artillery doctrine meta...
19 May 2016, 20:05 PM
#9
avatar of Firesparks

Posts: 1930

jump backJump back to quoted post19 May 2016, 20:02 PMMyself
Valentine is also extremely good at crushing...

and the valentine have identical movement stats to the cromwell.

I forgot about the valentine because rarely anyone use it, but everything I said about the cromwell's rotational rate and crush ability applies to the valetine.
19 May 2016, 20:07 PM
#10
avatar of Omega_Warrior

Posts: 2561

But what about the effectiveness of those two units. Cromwell and M10 depend on their mobility to be effective. Why should we nerf them just to keep a machinic in the game that was never intended to be a large part of it in the first place.

Shouldn't we also start adding crush potential to units cost then if we are consdering it a large part of the game? Are we never going to allow there to be an medium vehicle with high mobility in the game, just so we can keep crushing around?
19 May 2016, 20:09 PM
#11
avatar of Firesparks

Posts: 1930

But what about the effectiveness of those two units. Cromwell and M10 depend on their mobility to be effective. Why should we nerf them just to keep a machinic in the game that was never intended to be a large part of it in the first place.

Shouldn't we also start adding crush potential to units cost then if we are consdering it a large part of the game? Are we never going to allow there to be an medium vehicle with high mobility in the game, just so we can keep crushing around?


this is what testing is primarily about. I am fairly certain that nerfing the chassis rotational rate will have minimal effect on their overall mobility, but it's really something you need to actually test to know for certain.

and 34 deg/s is still decent while removing a huge chunk of their crush ability. It's the same rotational rate as the t34/85 and the 75mm sherman.

19 May 2016, 20:09 PM
#12
avatar of Cultist_kun

Posts: 295 | Subs: 1

Why ppl need crushing anyway? I mean its quite BS mechanic which clearly favorites RNG and shitty play. I mean, you still can push enemy AT inf, and deny ability to shoot their AT weapon, to have time to bring reinforcents and so on.

In this case all tanks should have same chances to crush or their cost should represent their ability to crush, or they all shoulndn't be able to crush.

I would rather see crushing remove, because this mechanic was never part of gameplay, rather then abusive mechanic, which was clearly in favor of Brits and USF.
19 May 2016, 20:14 PM
#13
avatar of Omega_Warrior

Posts: 2561



this is what testing is primarily about. I am fairly certain that nerfing the chassis rotational rate will have minimal effect on their overall mobility, but it's really something you need to actually test to know for certain.

and 34 deg/s is still decent while removing a huge chunk of their crush ability. It's the same rotational rate as the t34/85 and the 75mm sherman.

How is a units ability to change direction, minimal to mobility. It's pretty much half of it. It directly effects the units ability to get out of danger and circle targets. It's not like all maps are straight lines.
19 May 2016, 20:22 PM
#14
avatar of Firesparks

Posts: 1930

How is a units ability to change direction, minimal to mobility. It's pretty much half of it. It directly effects the units ability to get out of danger and circle targets. It's not like all maps are straight lines.


there's a difference between turning tighter vs turning faster. nerfing the rotational rate means the tank would have a wider turn, but it shouldn't turn that much slower.
19 May 2016, 20:48 PM
#15
avatar of Tobis
Senior Strategist Badge
Donator 11

Posts: 2307 | Subs: 4

This is the clear and simple solution to the problem. Infantry should fear tanks, not the other way around.
19 May 2016, 20:52 PM
#16
avatar of elchino7
Senior Moderator Badge

Posts: 8154 | Subs: 2

The change is equal to the era when heavies run away from lone infantry squads due to the fear of snares.

You don't change a whole mechanic due to 2 or 3 offending units.
19 May 2016, 21:01 PM
#17
avatar of Myself

Posts: 677

Another alternative would be to have some slow or stun for vehicles hit by hand infantry AT weapons at point blank range (below 10).

I really dislike crushing as a viable strategy especially against AT infantry...
19 May 2016, 21:21 PM
#18
avatar of Doomlord52

Posts: 960

So I'm the only one who found inf crush to be an poorly implemented 'gimmick' that should in no way be treated as a core mechanic? Really?

Every alternative to simply removing crush nerfs the unit in question. Slower rotation means less maneuverability, which means a harder time escaping 'close call' situations. It also means (in theory) worse pathing, since poor pathing decisions requiring lots of turning would take longer.

Honestly, removing inf crush was one of the best decisions in the balance mod. It was poorly implemented, insanely inconsistent (sometimes the tank goes into a blob, spins, does nothing. Other times it wipes 3 squads), and frustrating to both use and play against. It negated cover use (crush cover AND the squads using it), messed with infantry pathing and control (squads between cover and a tank are uncontrollable), and in general made no sense at all (not a realistic use of a tank).

If tanks are now suddenly under performing, then guess what? BUFF THEM.

Also this means that the Opel Blitz won't accidentally crush friendly troops. Which made no sense.
19 May 2016, 22:18 PM
#19
avatar of Mistah_S

Posts: 851 | Subs: 1

I totally agree with you +1


+1 to OP - I


So I'm the only one who found inf crush to be an poorly implemented 'gimmick' that should in no way be treated as a core mechanic? Really?


These!

19 May 2016, 22:33 PM
#20
avatar of Firesparks

Posts: 1930

jump backJump back to quoted post19 May 2016, 19:37 PMVuther
While a fairly logical idea, I am entirely certain doing this would cause ragequits over pathfinding screwups to increase exponentially.


it would just affect the four offending units, instead of affecting nearly every tank.

and if the sherman, t34/85, and panzer 4 have such extreme path finding problem, it would be better to find a separate solution instead of overpowering it with insane turn rate.
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

815 users are online: 815 guests
0 post in the last 24h
5 posts in the last week
33 posts in the last month
Registered members: 49143
Welcome our newest member, Spdcderry
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM