[week 3 may preview] alternative to crush removal

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.

I totally agree with you +1

That would be a double Nerf; mobility and crush.

While a fairly logical idea, I am entirely certain doing this would cause ragequits over pathfinding screwups to increase exponentially.

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.

+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)

Valentine is also extremely good at crushing...

Valentine is also extremely good at crushing...

Valentine shouldn't get any nerfs. I would be amazed to see artillery doctrine meta...

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

This is the clear and simple solution to the problem. Infantry should fear tanks, not the other way around.

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.

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...

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.

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!

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.