Login

russian armor

WinterBalance 1.2

PAGES (11)down
12 Dec 2016, 19:11 PM
#161
avatar of Budwise
Admin Red  Badge
Donator 11

Posts: 2075 | Subs: 2

Am I missing something here? Is there another tech that has to happen before unlocking PTRS like maybe T3 or something? Otherwise you will ruin early vehicle play.
12 Dec 2016, 20:48 PM
#162
avatar of synThrax
Donator 11

Posts: 144

Even if it doesn't have all the changes you asked for its a lot better than the things going on right now. The current meta as it is now just has to end.

And why are so few people testing this thing? :(

12 Dec 2016, 21:00 PM
#163
avatar of ZombiFrancis

Posts: 2742

Plenty of testing is going on. Getting that feedback in a presentable format so that it is considered valid seems to be the biggest obstacle thus far. As such, not everyone's opinions or experiences are equal. That alone can stymy most efforts before they even get a chance.
12 Dec 2016, 21:18 PM
#164
avatar of BIH_kirov_QC

Posts: 367

jump backJump back to quoted post12 Dec 2016, 19:11 PMBudwise
Am I missing something here? Is there another tech that has to happen before unlocking PTRS like maybe T3 or something? Otherwise you will ruin early vehicle play.


if someone make one 222 and the soviets player upgrade all his penals with ptrs well u just won. yes the 222 will get owned, bot then penals gonna get owned by your infantry. and tho 222 made u win.
12 Dec 2016, 21:20 PM
#165
avatar of __deleted__

Posts: 4314 | Subs: 7

jump backJump back to quoted post12 Dec 2016, 19:11 PMBudwise
Am I missing something here? Is there another tech that has to happen before unlocking PTRS like maybe T3 or something? Otherwise you will ruin early vehicle play.


Thats they point, giving Tier1 ligh conter to vehicles at cost of harming penals AI.

Also most vehicles can kite penals because of their long aiming time (222 luchs) or simply set up, supress them kill them and pop panic smoke and escape if you screw it up (flaptrack)


We tested it and I have to say, penals PTRS are rather weak than strong in higher skill level
12 Dec 2016, 23:12 PM
#166
avatar of Budwise
Admin Red  Badge
Donator 11

Posts: 2075 | Subs: 2

Keep 2v2 in mind please. The ability for one player to just go PTRS Penals and combine with Rifles or maxims, or what have you, basically gives a 2v2 team the ability to deal with anything early game. Not to mention what good will a Kubel be ever again lol. An army should not have the ability go have shoulder fired AT that early in the game. It's just a bad bad idea. It should require T3 building at least if you are hell bent on this idea, but I think its bad in general.
12 Dec 2016, 23:24 PM
#167
avatar of Carlos Danger

Posts: 362



I must be blind, but in my eyes, the Luchs is getting a very nice price reduction, on top of increased availability of medkits on the tier that supports it.

The reason why the AoE needed some toning down was because that it would murder things if the shots scattered to obstacles behind them.

Incidentally, that is exactly what happens if a Luchs base-dives after a retreating squads; all squad models are helplessly clumped up against the base structure = death.

The fix to the Luch's scatter profile, will make it so that 33% more shots will land on the ground than before (as opposed to missing completely, in the air).

Just like before; avoid obstacles between you and the target, and avoid moving the luchs while it's firing, and it's all going to be OK.
My problem is primarily that this patch is taking a unit that already arrived too early (particularly vs. Brits that don't go AEC) and then makes it arrive even earlier. Makes zero sense.

I wasn't really complaining about the nerfs. I was complaining about the "very nice price reduction" lol.
13 Dec 2016, 00:27 AM
#168
avatar of Mistah_S

Posts: 851 | Subs: 1


sorry it was language issue just want to see this ability work it own way like i've used jadgetiger ability to wipe out stationary weapon
perharp 1400 hr not enough i'll try to learn then :D

Ah, now I see.
You can always learn new tricks mate :)


So yeah, reduce the windup.

I would say remove it. I am still against Penals getting PTRS rifles... That's what Guards are for.

jump backJump back to quoted post12 Dec 2016, 10:16 AMEsxile

I use the doctrine almost every time on 2vs2+ if I don't need a specific late game unit such as the Elef or Lefh.
Assault Grenadiers are really powerful early game, you can get 2 of them or combine a squad with a HMG42 early on.
250 ht = let you have a cheap and reliable FT vehicle + a squad of pzgren.
stug-e, no need to present its advantages. It strongly counter allied players over-investing on infantry.
Arty, cheap and effective.
Tiger, good generalist unit.

Only issue is that Half-Track doesnt reinforce units :\


Why not make the conscripts a better at unit?

+1 on buffing Cons.

Butter by the fishes.
How deal a OKW player vs a a soviet which spam penals? He cann´t..only the AA FLakhalftrack help him.

You spam SturmPios and close in the distance.
With PTRS, penals are crap at killing infrantry.
Also consider upgrading Volks with STGs


its l2p man

To a point, yes, but HT and Luchs get chewed pretty quickly

I don't know if this was said before... But PLEASE, someone change Brit Cancer Commander to something more edible.

God, This X 1 000 000


Man ptrs penals are useles vs infatry.

More less useful against infra, and a threat to light vehicles.
Tanks still rape
13 Dec 2016, 03:15 AM
#169
avatar of ZombiFrancis

Posts: 2742



Thats they point, giving Tier1 ligh conter to vehicles at cost of harming penals AI.

Also most vehicles can kite penals because of their long aiming time (222 luchs) or simply set up, supress them kill them and pop panic smoke and escape if you screw it up (flaptrack)

We tested it and I have to say, penals PTRS are rather weak than strong in higher skill level


I see that it is very important that the time and energy put into implementing and testing penals PTRS be respected. However just because a lot of time has been sunk into testing PTRS penals doesn't mean it becomes any more valid or balanced an option on that virtue alone.

I get that the idea is to give Penal Battalions a sort of choice that mimics Panzergrenadiers'. That the unit must make a choice between built to fight infantry or built to fight vehicles.

The difference is that there is not a clear role change with Penal Battalions PTRS. A panzergrenadier squad with schrecks is an AT unit. It completely changes their utility.

A penal battalion with PTRS is not a strict AT unit no more than Guards are a strict AT unit. Even with AT Satchels penal battalions aren't an AT unit. It's not like panzerfausts make Grens or Volks an AT unit.

AT Satchels accomplish a very different function, which is extremely beneficial to the unit but also gameplay in general.

The AT Satchels serve two purposes. First and foremost they act as a deterrent to vehicles rushing point blank into the squad that most all other infantry have access to in some form. Obersoldaten are the only other stock unit that is (sorta) helpless against vehicles. (They have that smoke grenade, but I've never seen it used on vehicles.) Shock Troops and Assault Grenadiers are the doctrinal ones.

The second purpose the AT Satchels provides is as an actual anti tank device. It is only really feasible on damaged and disabled vehicles, else it is a suicidal charge/chase. (And imagine that for penals.) It's important to note that anything that allows the AT Satchel to be useful requires utilizing units from HQ or other tiers. Any number of PTRS isn't going to make a difference in the feasible functionality of AT Satchels.

And THAT is a worthwhile feature to keep around for Penals: an ability that helps safeguard against the more cheesier of gameplay tactics that requires combined arms or clever maneuvering and positioning to fully utilize.
13 Dec 2016, 03:27 AM
#170
avatar of Tristan44

Posts: 915

I'm just happy there is another patch
13 Dec 2016, 04:49 AM
#171
avatar of Firesparks

Posts: 1930



Live version Stug-E is a glorified, long-range T-70.

Unlike T-70. Unlike the T-70 though, this unit lacks a turret and, thus, the ability to safely close the distance. Thus, if the map happened to have any sort of elevation between the Stug-E and the target, tough luck.

I have played a lot of 3v3+ games, all steps of the ladder. I have never, ever, ever, ever, ever seen that commander bring anything but misfortune to the guy that chooses it.

There's so many hills and shotblockers and anything, that you are better off spamming Ostwinds (which arrive earlier than the Stug-E for those game-modes).

Even TWP is not enough to carry the Stug-E there.

Even if massed Stug-E can somehow displace Brummbars (which don't die to 3 shots poking them, btw), let it be. In any case the doctrine also gets access to Tigers.


if the issue is with collusion, you can fixed it by changing the stug E projectile's collusion type from tp_artillery to tp_homing(what the stug G and pz4 use).
13 Dec 2016, 05:33 AM
#172
avatar of ZombiFrancis

Posts: 2742

The StuG E has always been a 1v1 phenom.

All commanders are horribly ill-timed in 3v3s and 4v4s. 2v2s are bearable though.

I don't know why so much energy is being put into trying to fine tune the StuG E gun. The problem with the StuG E is its spammability isn't it? The timing and role it plays in the commander is what might warrant investigation.

Or just make it a not-StuH (like we're all really missing) and set it to arrive a few CPs later.

And as far as the Luchs is concerned, what about keeping it pricey and swapping it with the Flak HT? Without the Puma option the Luchs is a rather deep investment into the medic truck without any kind of mobile AT. And a Luchs will at least arrive later than the Flak HT can right now.

In addition, going for a Puma after a Luchs is further still a deep investment without any form of real armor.

I mean, I would rather that than making the Luchs cheaper in its current tier. But more than anything I feel like the Flak HT and the IR HT are forever going to be the redheaded stepchildren of OKW.
13 Dec 2016, 11:27 AM
#173
avatar of Mr.Smith

Posts: 2636 | Subs: 17

My problem is primarily that this patch is taking a unit that already arrived too early (particularly vs. Brits that don't go AEC) and then makes it arrive even earlier. Makes zero sense.

I wasn't really complaining about the nerfs. I was complaining about the "very nice price reduction" lol.


- The AEC is stronger vs the Luchs (armour buff).
- Brits now also have the option to go PIATs vs the Luchs; with or without the AT gun.
- Soviet T1 has PTRS Penals. To make Luchs more worth it vs the resource tradeoff OKW is enforcing on the Soviets, the Luchs is better off being cheap. (neither the OKW player can unbuild the luchs, nor the Soviet player can revert the PTRS upgrade)
- M20 is cheaper
- M15 can have its flanks protected by AT rifle grenades that deal 100 damage each

On the other hand, OKW vehicles needed to do a bit of something vs Maxim spam, and that's what fixing anti-garrison damage for those vehicles achieves.

MechHQ is already a risk-tier as it is. I don't think it's fair for the OKW player to be forced to invest so much to get only a single Luchs out.


if the issue is with collusion, you can fixed it by changing the stug E projectile's collusion type from tp_artillery to tp_homing(what the stug G and pz4 use).


We could. On the other hand it is more faithful to immersion if we have the projectile going through obstacles using arcs, rather than travelling through things to achieve the same effect.
13 Dec 2016, 11:52 AM
#174
avatar of TickTack

Posts: 578

Soviet T1 has PTRS Penals. To make Luchs more worth it vs the resource tradeoff OKW is enforcing on the Soviets, the Luchs is better off being cheap.

1. Penal PTRS is not a proven solution yet
2. PTRS damage isn't sufficent to easily kill Luchs
3. Satchel might, but it's still expensive until vet3
4. OKW units shouldn't be getting cheaper, especially vehicles, which are stronger than most other factions' vehicles, generally speaking

Based on the above, I don't think it makes sense to reduce luchs price due to PTRS penals being a thing

I don't think it's fair for the OKW player to be forced to invest so much to get only a single Luchs out.

Is this the consensus across the balance team? Because making this unit cheaper accelerates OKW towards a very powerful end game that much quicker. I'd be surprised if everyone thought this was wise.
13 Dec 2016, 12:39 PM
#175
avatar of Mr.Smith

Posts: 2636 | Subs: 17


1. Penal PTRS is not a proven solution yet
2. PTRS damage isn't sufficent to easily kill Luchs
3. Satchel might, but it's still expensive until vet3
4. OKW units shouldn't be getting cheaper, especially vehicles, which are stronger than most other factions' vehicles, generally speaking

Based on the above, I don't think it makes sense to reduce luchs price due to PTRS penals being a thing


Regardless of whether PTRS will be the prescribed solution for T1 or not, T1 will be getting some AT options. That way T1 can, at least, be somewhat self-sufficient. Otherwise, we're just setting us up for failure:
- Either T1 will be too weak for 1v1, thus never used
- Or, T1 will be so good in terms of AI-specialization that we will ruin teamgames (mostly because all the AT it takes to carry a T1 investment is a single AT gun, that a teammate can provide).

Adding an AT option to T1 will also give us free hand to design the AI utility of the tier better, so that T1 will not be a "cheese-fast-or-lose" tier.

With the new price Luchs isn't stronger or weaker than other factions' vehicles. It's a specialist AI vehicle.
13 Dec 2016, 13:22 PM
#176
avatar of Australian Magic

Posts: 4630 | Subs: 2

Put down PTRS and make M-42 great again!
13 Dec 2016, 14:26 PM
#177
avatar of Danyek

Posts: 294 | Subs: 1


1. Penal PTRS is not a proven solution yet
2. PTRS damage isn't sufficent to easily kill Luchs
3. Satchel might, but it's still expensive until vet3
4. OKW units shouldn't be getting cheaper, especially vehicles, which are stronger than most other factions' vehicles, generally speaking

Based on the above, I don't think it makes sense to reduce luchs price due to PTRS penals being a thing


Is this the consensus across the balance team? Because making this unit cheaper accelerates OKW towards a very powerful end game that much quicker. I'd be surprised if everyone thought this was wise.


Allied fanboy detected lol :rofl:
13 Dec 2016, 14:59 PM
#178
avatar of Mr.Smith

Posts: 2636 | Subs: 17

Put down PTRS and make M-42 great again!


Even if PTRS Penals are weak, at least they allow the Soviet player to get some non-doctrinal handheld AT. Even barely anything is better than nothing. That already gives T1 an edge over T2.

Unless T1 units are really worth it, nobody will ever want to pick T1 to build a crappy M-42, when they could simply get Maxim & Zis instead.

Nobody wants to build a crappy AT gun so that they leave it abandoned later on.

To give you an idea about what a hopeless team weapon looks like, try to imagine yourself, playing as OST and coming across 3 abandoned Soviet PM-41 mortars. Would you ever waste the manpower needed to recrew them? I bet not.

You probably wouldn't even bother destroying them, so that your enemy can waste more of their manpower to recrew them. M-42 shouldn't be such a hopeless unit.

Thus, if you want to help making M-42 decent, open up a new brainstorming thread and get the community to contribute. Since M-42 should be weaker vs heavier tanks, at least it should compensate with utility.
- Avoid putting cheesy utility, like stun
- Designs without klingon cloaking fields are greatly appreciated

I'll start by mentioning that damage should go up to 100 (maybe even 135) to allow the gun to be a specialist light-vehicle killer, even if its penetration remains crappy.

Even if M-42 won't make it to T1, we could reuse the ideas for a potential commander rework in the future.
13 Dec 2016, 15:00 PM
#179
avatar of Burts

Posts: 1702



Regardless of whether PTRS will be the prescribed solution for T1 or not, T1 will be getting some AT options. That way T1 can, at least, be somewhat self-sufficient. Otherwise, we're just setting us up for failure:
- Either T1 will be too weak for 1v1, thus never used
- Or, T1 will be so good in terms of AI-specialization that we will ruin teamgames (mostly because all the AT it takes to carry a T1 investment is a single AT gun, that a teammate can provide).

Adding an AT option to T1 will also give us free hand to design the AI utility of the tier better, so that T1 will not be a "cheese-fast-or-lose" tier.

With the new price Luchs isn't stronger or weaker than other factions' vehicles. It's a specialist AI vehicle.


I am very hopeful with the balance in your hands and your team ;)

The other changes are mostly good. Just the soviet T1 is problematic.

But i'm very happy you are still looking into it.
13 Dec 2016, 15:37 PM
#180
avatar of vasa1719

Posts: 2635 | Subs: 4

Permanently Banned


Regardless of whether PTRS will be the prescribed solution for T1 or not, T1 will be getting some AT options. That way T1 can, at least, be somewhat self-sufficient. Otherwise, we're just setting us up for failure:
- Either T1 will be too weak for 1v1, thus never used
- Or, T1 will be so good in terms of AI-specialization that we will ruin teamgames (mostly because all the AT it takes to carry a T1 investment is a single AT gun, that a teammate can provide).

Adding an AT option to T1 will also give us free hand to design the AI utility of the tier better, so that T1 will not be a "cheese-fast-or-lose" tier.

With the new price Luchs isn't stronger or weaker than other factions' vehicles. It's a specialist AI vehicle.


You forget about timeing when luchs arrive and when arrive t-70.
PAGES (11)down
0 user is browsing this thread:

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

607 users are online: 607 guests
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