Relic Winter Balance Preview v1.1 Update

hey guys pls dont forget okw 20mm flak emplacement, this unit needs your attention, its very weak and totally useless.

Or the M-42. Also the B-4 needs a complete rework.

Instead, or in addition to a munitions cost increase, would it help if we locked the Bren carrier behind something else?
- e.g., AEC/Bofors tech
- or, grenades tech (if we could offset some of nade tech cost to T3)
- Or, otherwise, by how much fuel would you delay the UC?

Otherwise, what do you think would help?

All flames can traverse walls/objects, but ballistic weapons is not so aggressive. Therefore eliminate shoot the ground. Remove in HTflame and UC :

UKF
bren carrier with flamer is too good right now I think. Even better if we take new 222 cost into account. I suggest moving munnition cost back to 90 or at least 75 (so it isn´t useless and serves job, but also losing it prematurely will hurt you)

Apologies for asking you again about the same thing:

Do you consider the Flame Carrier OP in which of these types of situations:
- When units are in a garrison (alpha damage)
- When units are clumped up behind cover
- When units are spread out in open ground
- All of the above

I know you've uploaded a UC flamer replay, but I didn't have the opportunity to watch it before the new version came out

Only the garrison damage is too strong, imho. The rest is managable.

An MG42 can absorb 1 flame blast while in a house, but not 2.

An MG42 can absorb 1 flame blast while in a house, but not 2.

Sounds like the KV-1 outside of a house

Will there be anything done with the Greyhound? It's pretty useless in it's current state and since the team is addressing light vehicles something should be done with it, same with WC truck

I am, personally, opposed to touching doctrinal stuff when stock armies are being changed so radically*:
- We want people to try out the stock army, and discover boring no-brainer meta, before it becomes actual live-version meta

* This statement doesn't hold for the Stug-E, for obvious reasons.

However, if we manage to get more people involved in giving feedback from actual in-game experience vs human opponents, I don't see any reason why we shouldn't fix the Greyhound, or other useless doctrinal stuff (e.g., the 250).

Thus, if by some miracle we manage to get 50 people to contribute 3 replays each in the replay thread within the next two weeks, I will do everything in my power to convince the others to consider fixing those units.

Thus:
- Contribute 3 replays to the thread
- Try to abuse the stuff that we've changed as hard as you can
- Try to abuse the stuff we have not been able to change, even harder
- Save Greyhound/250 from uselessness

I am, personally, opposed to touching doctrinal stuff when stock armies are being changed so radically*:
- We want people to try out the stock army, and discover boring no-brainer meta, before it becomes actual live-version meta

* This statement doesn't hold for the Stug-E, for obvious reasons.

However, if we manage to get more people involved in giving feedback from actual in-game experience vs human opponents, I don't see any reason why we shouldn't fix the Greyhound, or other useless doctrinal stuff (e.g., the 250).

Thus, if by some miracle we manage to get 50 people to contribute 3 replays each in the replay thread within the next two weeks, I will do everything in my power to convince the others to consider fixing those units.

Thus:
- Contribute 3 replays to the thread
- Try to abuse the stuff that we've changed as hard as you can
- Try to abuse the stuff we have not been able to change, even harder
- Save Greyhound/250 from uselessness

If we're going to touch Greyhound might as well do the WC51 truck too. But these two are super low priority if we are happy with how everything else is balancing out.

Is possible change reverse speed on tanks? (I mean tone down, for slower revers speed)

Some thoughts:

ML-20 and LeFH could go from sixteen pop and 600MP to fourteen and 500MP.

Panzer Fusilier population from six to seven please and get rid of the extra sight on the G-43 package (the dudes have flares for God's sake).

StuG could go to to 640 health from 560 (basically makes it less vulnerable to high-damage tank destroyers) and then 10 population (8 is too low imo).

LeIG could be a bit better against units in buildings.

PaK-40 and ZiS-3 should both be seven population or the other AT guns should be nine.

Stormtrooper StG upgrade could be dropped to sixty munitions.

Encirclement sprint shouldn't work on the German sniper.

Would slightly prefer to see the Luchs get a small fuel cost increase (say to seventy from sixty-five) and a slightly longer build time rather than a bunch of damage nerfs. I honestly don't think the problem with this guy is its actual performance. Problem is that it arrives way too bloody fast. The vet five suppression is silly, mind you.

USF mortar nerf isn't well implemented imo. Basically takes a mortar with low scatter and forces you to use it up close. Which is risky, yeah, but it's also going to make it really bloody accurate. Like it's never ever going to miss now.

Is possible change reverse speed on tanks? (I mean tone down, for slower revers speed)

From what I hear no, the game engine is built around speed and doesn't differentiate between forward and reverse speed*

*Hear say, may not be true

I am asking so many people to pay with me for a balance mod game, but no-one wants to play damnit

are you guys also gonna fix the tommy pinata bug? coz I almost never equip my tommies with double wep upgrades due to their tendency to drop the weps a lot when they hit vet 3. or was that already fixed, and this whole time I've been skipping out on double lmg tommies for nothing?

If we're going to touch Greyhound might as well do the WC51 truck too. But these two are super low priority if we are happy with how everything else is balancing out.

WC51 is more tricky to balance than the other two due to its early arrival.

I would have to request 5 replays from 60 people to consider lifting my veto on this unit.

Just remember, that those replays need to come fast (within 2 weeks), so that any changes we can thoroughly playtest whichever changes we make to non-meta units.

...

wait what happened to katits while I was gone? did he finally get perma banned? if so, LUL.

wait what happened to katits while I was gone? did he finally get perma banned? if so, LUL.

y

Yeah I think so, I unfortunately never found out what post broke the camels back

- Save Greyhound/250 from uselessness

Please, simply ignore the 250 and don't waste any resources on it. The Greyhound to some point warrants using those resources, because it could be an actually useful unit. The 250 on the other hand is simply bad by design, not just because of its stats.
It's the same as with the StuG E, that thing should have simply been nerfed to remove it from the annoying and boring meta strats, and then be forgotten. That unit brings nothing of value to the game, spending any resources on it to "fix" it like you people tried in v1.1 (which still doesn't help it at all, that unit's initial nerf in v1.0 crushed its back and nobody is sad about that) is a complete waste of time.

Sure, that way isn't the elegant one (i.e. "every unit is beautiful"), but it works. Some units would simply take so much tinkering and trying and changing to make them usable without them being OP, that the time is better spent on more important things. Having stuff like the faction problems arising from "early infantry prowess vs. tank superiority" being solved is much more important than fixing some weak doctrinal units. The same could of course be said about the Greyhound, but some sort of prioritisation should be made - units that are actually salvageable like the Greyhound are much higher on the "unimportant things"-list than stuff like the fucking useless 250.

Please, simply ignore the 250 and don't waste any resources on it. The Greyhound to some point warrants using those resources, because it could be an actually useful unit. The 250 on the other hand is simply bad by design, not just because of its stats.
It's the same as with the StuG E, that thing should have simply been nerfed to remove it from the annoying and boring meta strats, and then be forgotten. That unit brings nothing of value to the game, spending any resources on it to "fix" it like you people tried in v1.1 (which still doesn't help it at all, that unit's initial nerf in v1.0 crushed its back and nobody is sad about that) is a complete waste of time.

Sure, that way isn't the elegant one (i.e. "every unit is beautiful"), but it works. Some units would simply take so much tinkering and trying and changing to make them usable without them being OP, that the time is better spent on more important things. Having stuff like the faction problems arising from "early infantry prowess vs. tank superiority" being solved is much more important than fixing some weak doctrinal units. The same could of course be said about the Greyhound, but some sort of prioritisation should be made - units that are actually salvageable like the Greyhound are much higher on the "unimportant things"-list than stuff like the fucking useless 250.

You have no idea what ideas we have already hatched to make the Greyhound, the 250 or the WC-51 to make them both useful and sexy.

Hector, Le Saucisson Masqué, The Lnt.599, Danyek and Finndeed have already been carrying the entire community. That means we need 45 more players to start contributing replays to the thread. Why don't you become the 6th such contributor?

That means we need 45 more players to start contributing replays to the thread. Why don't you become the 6th such contributor?

Because that would require a) any players in my time zone playing with the mod (not the biggest problem, due to me playing mostly 1v1s) and b) the game not to perform horribly with replays recording in the background. And no, my computer isn't the issue, as I'm running on an i5 4570, GTX 1070, 16GB RAM, with both the game and the system installed on SSDs. As soon as I unlock the replay folder, the game drops to about 20 FPS on medium to low settings, which is unplayable in my opinion.

Hector, Le Saucisson Masqué, The Lnt.599, Danyek and Finndeed have already been carrying the entire community.

Ah yes, that good old argument at it again. Or in other words, why don't I just shut up because my ideas are not considered of enough grandeur to make me part of that mythical group that is responsible for this community even existing?

You have no idea what ideas we have already hatched to make the Greyhound, the 250 or the WC-51 to make them both useful and sexy.

No, I can't read your minds and since you people don't tell anyone outside of your "gang", nobody but you people knows. What I do know is that especially transport vehicles in a game of this scale are a particularly moronic idea to implement in the first place. Which is why "buffing" the 251 to transport mortars was about as useful as sewing a knob to my cheek, compared to simply bringing it up to the level of other forward reinforcement vehicles (either by going the way of the American ambulance, or the Soviet M5). Taking the hilariously complicated and time expensive work to transport your units around the field works in game like War Game, because the scale matches the amount of units on the field. But in a game where your infantry on foot arrives barely five seconds after the vehicle (especially with the pathing issues), and embarking plus disembarking together takes more mirco and 4 seconds (at least in v1.1 WBP it does take that long) it doesn't make any sense.

Unless you want to entirely rework the 250 (which is what I am arguing against), there is no way to make it useful. Of course, I don't pay you and thus I don't get to order you around or anything, but don't be surprised if acceptance and player input is so low when you focus on things like the StuG E (apart from nerfing it to make the boring meta go away) and potentially the 250...

I will add this to the list of bugs/inconsistencies we have. However, giving more HP to certain building types may actually require a lot of legwork:
- Identify these entities in the files
- Modify the HP to the right value

Since this mod is already retouching pretty much everything else, I would rather postpone this bugfix for another, more lightweight patch.

Alright, I just wanted to know if you´re aware of that fact because there are so many things that need fixing and are lost somewhere...

Instead, or in addition to a munitions cost increase, would it help if we locked the Bren carrier behind something else?
- e.g., AEC/Bofors tech
- or, grenades tech (if we could offset some of nade tech cost to T3)
- Or, otherwise, by how much fuel would you delay the UC?

Otherwise, what do you think would help?

It definitely wouldn´t help, even right now you´re stressed mainly in terms of manpower to get flamer carrier on field in time (because once enemy gets 222/AT weapons it will soonly get obsolete).

Right now you pay 180(tier2)+260(carrier) MP just for getting it. I think timing and fuel is just right because you have essetialy one less squad (or even 2 because of fast teching) to get flamer UC. Performance wise I think its fine because it was mean to be high risk high reward - on replay it died to assault grens once it go fausted (they just circled it) so I think its fine and killable once hit by snare or any other vehicle hits the field, so It should maintain shock value and timing.

What is not fine however, is risk/reward value. You don´t lose all that much once its gone becuase you will already have squads you lost before and 60 munnition doesn´t mean that much. Thats why I suggest ONLY increasing munnition cost to 75-90 and let it settle down a bit and test it. We don´t waht to evernerf this units right from moment it become useful - not definitely OP. I think munnition increase is all it need to increase its high risk high reward potential.

Also locking it behind addition techs will make it useless because it counters will already hit the field and so you won´t be able counter HMG´s with it.

ONLY THING THAT MUST BE CHANGED: remove anti sniper DPS bonus and sniper detection bonus once flamer get upgraded, it creates unintended things I think. It should either be MG counter vehicle or sniper counter vehicle not both. By this change player have to think actually.

Technically the AEC should be at least equal to the Puma with respect to moving accuracy. Do you think the AEC requires a buff for a particular reason.


Same as the AEC. At the very least it should be a lot better this patch though, no?

Out of scope

You don´t understand. Problem isn´t AC vs Puma comparison. Problem is that htey are intended to hunt light vehicles but light vehicles have low hitboxes. When we multiply this with weak moving accuraccy, we will get huntin vehicle that isnt actually all that good at huntin vehicles. And believe me, it creates bad gameplay when you try to hunt almost dead light tank/222 and you miss 3 times in row because of bad accuraccy and in the end vehicle even kills you. You have to stop unit every time before it shots to get hunter vehicle that actually hits.
HOW TO FIX ? Make its movement penalty for main gun similar to shermans - low

Will have to discuss with others. Is there any reason why Guards-in-M3 wouldn't be a stronger combo for that matter, though?

Yes they are stronger combo than penals right now but I think you´re missing the core thing. Why aren´t guard with PTRS and penals combo OP but penals with PTRS are ?
Guards come at 2CP when you already have infantry composition already done (at least in 1v1) so you will get mostly 1-2 guard to suplement your 4 squads if you want to tech afterwards for tanks. Otherwise you will bleed like pig.

Penals with PTRS are problem because penals can become core infantry while guards cannot. The same apply to other factions - volks with schrecks were OP, pgrens are not.

Also guards come at 2CP so enemy have chance to counter M3 with fast 222 even before enemy hits 2CP.

And one last thing. Because penals are core combat infantry, you will have PTRS everywhere and you will be albe to use any squad on field to jump into car and kill damaged 222 while with guards it a bit complicated becuase you have 1 max 2 guard squads at time when 222 come and M3 tend to extint. Hope you understand

Technically, the SU-76 munitions cost is there to prevent SU76 blobs from scaling too well. In teamgames I regularly float about 4-6 SU-76's, and they really pay off.

I think you don´t understand once again. I thought about giving suchka barrage another munition cost increase (now 15, then 30) so it actually cost something (now it cost like molotov, lol) and decrease cooldown rate to zis gun rate (or something about 20-30 seconds instaed of 50-60).

By this change 1-2 suckas will get buffed because they can fire more offen and wreak more havoc on enemy defences, but munnition cost will actually make you think about it. On the other hand it stop scaling sucka swarms too well. (player who use diverse army will get edge as long as he use ability efficiently and player who spam suckas and stupidly place barrages will get punished, i think this was design or ?)

I have never ever seen or experienced the gammon bomb bug you describe. To me, it seems as if no projectile was spawned.

I noticed that weird crawling thing about the snipers in the game you mentioned. I'll have to look it up.

Thx again!

Np you´re welcome.


BUG:
OKW shu mines don´t supress (don´t know if fixed, sorry if yes)


And one last thing. Do you have any preferences about units/combo whitch I should make replays first?