Login

russian armor

[week 3 may preview] alternative to crush removal

19 May 2016, 23:41 PM
#21
avatar of Vuther
Senior Moderator Badge

Posts: 3103 | Subs: 1



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.

Wot I misread -_-

Yeah, I'm cool with affecting those specific units in this manner. For some reason I imagined you were saying to nerf all tanks like this to definitely cut down on it >_>
20 May 2016, 02:00 AM
#22
avatar of RedDevilCG

Posts: 154

What AT infantry spam are allies facing in the preview patch? Sturmpioneer spam?
20 May 2016, 03:08 AM
#23
avatar of Selvy289

Posts: 366

Considering that the Soviet announcer says the M4C sherman is a heavy, can it still crush?

I believe it also uses heavy skins to.
22 May 2016, 11:19 AM
#24
avatar of ofield

Posts: 420

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.


I totally disagree. Crush is a reward for proper tank micro. it is also risky since all core inf except for brits will have non doc snares. So actually crush shouldn't be much of a problem at all. And it isn't even historical inaccurate.
22 May 2016, 20:53 PM
#25
avatar of Cultist_kun

Posts: 295 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post22 May 2016, 11:19 AMofield


I totally disagree. Crush is a reward for proper tank micro. it is also risky since all core inf except for brits will have non doc snares. So actually crush shouldn't be much of a problem at all. And it isn't even historical inaccurate.


Oh please, lets say see it in this way. How harder and how much micro PIV takes to crush, now compare how much micro cromwell takes to crush. You will see that cromwell is 900000% easier.

Look at panther, look at comet. And so on.

Its not like british dont blob, or soviet dont blob or USF dont blob. All factions blob and there are blobers across all factions. Why then crushing should be only usefull and easy to make by allies? Not to mention that crushing usually force player to lose his vet troops in a seconds.
24 May 2016, 11:42 AM
#26
avatar of vietnamabc

Posts: 1063



Oh please, lets say see it in this way. How harder and how much micro PIV takes to crush, now compare how much micro cromwell takes to crush. You will see that cromwell is 900000% easier.

Look at panther, look at comet. And so on.

Its not like british dont blob, or soviet dont blob or USF dont blob. All factions blob and there are blobers across all factions. Why then crushing should be only usefull and easy to make by allies? Not to mention that crushing usually force player to lose his vet troops in a seconds.

More like because other Allied anti blobbing tools are shit, USF make their own blob, SU used to rely on Maxim now it's crap so T-34/demos if lucky, UKF relied on Vickers which is more expansive and less effective than MG-42.
Axis got good MG so Allied blob need tons of smoke and indirect support to pull it off. Also crush only becomes widespread since UKF patch, one year ago nobody complains about it.
24 May 2016, 14:14 PM
#27
avatar of Imagelessbean

Posts: 1585 | Subs: 1



Oh please, lets say see it in this way. How harder and how much micro PIV takes to crush, now compare how much micro cromwell takes to crush. You will see that cromwell is 900000% easier.

Look at panther, look at comet. And so on.

Its not like british dont blob, or soviet dont blob or USF dont blob. All factions blob and there are blobers across all factions. Why then crushing should be only usefull and easy to make by allies? Not to mention that crushing usually force player to lose his vet troops in a seconds.


This argument seems to imply because one faction has a tank that is probably overperforming in the crushing role therefore no one should have crush. That is a false statement. Also P4 has blitz, try that when you crush you will be presently surprised.

Crushing isn't just very useful to Allies, I find myself using it regularly with German factions.

Also most Allied tanks are extremely vulnerable when they crush because of the amount of AT on the German side, and the number of snares they have now in the patch.
24 May 2016, 14:31 PM
#28
avatar of Kamzil118

Posts: 455



This argument seems to imply because one faction has a tank that is probably overperforming in the crushing role therefore no one should have crush. That is a false statement. Also P4 has blitz, try that when you crush you will be presently surprised.

Crushing isn't just very useful to Allies, I find myself using it regularly with German factions.

Also most Allied tanks are extremely vulnerable when they crush because of the amount of AT on the German side, and the number of snares they have now in the patch.

There is finally a counter to those against crushing. If crushing has to go, so does combat blitz, and blitzkrieg.
24 May 2016, 15:31 PM
#29
avatar of Wygrif

Posts: 278



Oh please, lets say see it in this way. How harder and how much micro PIV takes to crush, now compare how much micro cromwell takes to crush. You will see that cromwell is 900000% easier.

Look at panther, look at comet. And so on.

Its not like british dont blob, or soviet dont blob or USF dont blob. All factions blob and there are blobers across all factions. Why then crushing should be only usefull and easy to make by allies? Not to mention that crushing usually force player to lose his vet troops in a seconds.



That's an argument for nerfing the Cromwell's crush, not removing crush altogether. Removing crush seems likely to have a bundle of dumb knock on effects, especially at high level play. If I pop hit the dirt behind a PIV, is that PIV now stuck? What if there's a suppressed or pinned squad behind it? Are you cool with losing it in those situations?

Besides crush was actually one of the best balanced things in the game. There was a neat risk/reward curve-you can get a squad, but because your positioning is predictable you can easily be baited into mines/at guns, never mind the snares.
24 May 2016, 17:20 PM
#30
avatar of Mr. Someguy

Posts: 4928

I don't think nerfing mobility is a good idea, it would just make units seem unresponsive and cause a lot of rage during critical moments where your tanks are taking fire but seem content to just slowly spin around until they die.

If anything I think we should keep the current change + increase rotation rate. A key reason people thought CoH1 had better pathing is because vehicles rotated much faster.
24 May 2016, 17:25 PM
#31
avatar of WhiteFlash
Senior Mapmaker Badge
Benefactor 119

Posts: 1295 | Subs: 1

+1 to this, great observation and very true, the ability of the tanks to turn quickly and crush the inf that get out of its way is the problem


prolly needs to be testing in ALL scenarios, not just inf crushing but its a start

Well done, relic pay attention here please.


24 May 2016, 19:29 PM
#32
avatar of Cultist_kun

Posts: 295 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post24 May 2016, 15:31 PMWygrif



That's an argument for nerfing the Cromwell's crush, not removing crush altogether. Removing crush seems likely to have a bundle of dumb knock on effects, especially at high level play. If I pop hit the dirt behind a PIV, is that PIV now stuck? What if there's a suppressed or pinned squad behind it? Are you cool with losing it in those situations?

Besides crush was actually one of the best balanced things in the game. There was a neat risk/reward curve-you can get a squad, but because your positioning is predictable you can easily be baited into mines/at guns, never mind the snares.


You cant nerf crush without nerfing cromwell\M10\T34 mobility. Crush happens because of really fast turning speed. Sure if you want to nerf crushing for thouse allied tanks, you have to nerf their rotating speed, which is nerf in general, because all thouse tanks based on mobility.

I'm not fine with that, but I dont rely fully on crushing, its not main tanks AI, and I wont miss it so much, because crushing for axis is already situational. Crushing as allies is regular thing, no matter what.

But ok, if ppl want to trade mobility of T34\Cromwell\M10 but keep crushing in the game (and it would be same situational feature, which would appear in 1 out of 10 games) then ok, let it be.
24 May 2016, 19:52 PM
#33
avatar of Wygrif

Posts: 278



You cant nerf crush without nerfing cromwell\M10\T34 mobility. Crush happens because of really fast turning speed. Sure if you want to nerf crushing for thouse allied tanks, you have to nerf their rotating speed, which is nerf in general, because all thouse tanks based on mobility.

I'm not fine with that, but I dont rely fully on crushing, its not main tanks AI, and I wont miss it so much, because crushing for axis is already situational. Crushing as allies is regular thing, no matter what.

But ok, if ppl want to trade mobility of T34\Cromwell\M10 but keep crushing in the game (and it would be same situational feature, which would appear in 1 out of 10 games) then ok, let it be.


I agree that it's really a lesser of two evils thing. I just think that allowing the opposition to fuck with tank pathing through infantry micro seems more likely to be abused than tank crush was in the first place.
24 May 2016, 20:02 PM
#34
avatar of Firesparks

Posts: 1930



You cant nerf crush without nerfing cromwell\M10\T34 mobility. Crush happens because of really fast turning speed. Sure if you want to nerf crushing for thouse allied tanks, you have to nerf their rotating speed, which is nerf in general, because all thouse tanks based on mobility.

I'm not fine with that, but I dont rely fully on crushing, its not main tanks AI, and I wont miss it so much, because crushing for axis is already situational. Crushing as allies is regular thing, no matter what.

But ok, if ppl want to trade mobility of T34\Cromwell\M10 but keep crushing in the game (and it would be same situational feature, which would appear in 1 out of 10 games) then ok, let it be.


32 is still decent, and it's the "safer" value.

34 match the sherman, and it already remove most of the crushing.
24 May 2016, 22:01 PM
#35
avatar of Mirdarion

Posts: 283

jump backJump back to quoted post19 May 2016, 20:48 PMTobis
This is the clear and simple solution to the problem. Infantry should fear tanks, not the other way around.


Ah yes, I forgot that entire hordes of unsupported tanks just drove into infantry lines in WWII and turned them into corpses. Oh wait, it was the other way around. Something about your logic doesn't seem to add up...
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

646 users are online: 646 guests
0 post in the last 24h
0 post in the last week
28 posts in the last month
Registered members: 49427
Welcome our newest member, Baqis73421
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM