Login

russian armor

December Balance Preview

  • This thread is locked
PAGES (85)down
8 Nov 2017, 21:46 PM
#481
avatar of MarkedRaptor

Posts: 320

jump backJump back to quoted post8 Nov 2017, 21:13 PMVipper

Why use only RE or only riflemen and not mix?


The more riflemen you use, the more you bleed and the more you push out the usefulness of elite troops like rangers or paratroopers. You can give your vet 2 riflemen bars, or you can get a vanilla elite trooper squad around 3 CP. You should use Echelons and riflemen in tandem, but then what exactly is the point of elite troops? This new change doesn't really emphasize elite troop usage like he says, it just emphasizes USF using more combined arms.

I can't imagine dropping 400 MP that I had saved up for reinforcements, teching up, and purchasing upgrades to get a ranger squad. It instantly puts you behind unless you were saving a bunch of manpower by not using riflemen or stalling somehow.

Probably doesn't help that the veterancy on Rangers/Paratroopers doesn't even really get good until like vet 3. Which loh and behold Riflemen have one hell of a vet 3 in comparison.
8 Nov 2017, 22:19 PM
#482
avatar of Outsider_Sidaroth

Posts: 1323 | Subs: 1



The more riflemen you use, the more you bleed and the more you push out the usefulness of elite troops like rangers or paratroopers. You can give your vet 2 riflemen bars, or you can get a vanilla elite trooper squad around 3 CP. You should use Echelons and riflemen in tandem, but then what exactly is the point of elite troops? This new change doesn't really emphasize elite troop usage like he says, it just emphasizes USF using more combined arms.

I can't imagine dropping 400 MP that I had saved up for reinforcements, teching up, and purchasing upgrades to get a ranger squad. It instantly puts you behind unless you were saving a bunch of manpower by not using riflemen or stalling somehow.

Probably doesn't help that the veterancy on Rangers/Paratroopers doesn't even really get good until like vet 3. Which loh and behold Riflemen have one hell of a vet 3 in comparison.


I wouldn't mind if they made Paras and Rangers better to make those Doctrines more atractive.
8 Nov 2017, 23:46 PM
#483
avatar of skemshead

Posts: 611



I wouldn't mind if they made Paras and Rangers better to make those Doctrines more atractive.


Rangers are bad now. :huh:

How so.

Personally I find they are extremely dangerous when flanking.
9 Nov 2017, 01:11 AM
#484
avatar of CobaltX105

Posts: 87



Rangers are bad now. :huh:

How so.

Personally I find they are extremely dangerous when flanking.

He's not saying they're bad. He's saying it'd be more effective to simply improve them in order to make them more attractive rather than nerf Rifles.

For one, we could increase the accuracy bonus they get at Vet 2 from 25% to 30%.

Two, we could decrease their CP cost so they come in early enough to actually fill in for Rifles, as opposed to being support for them.

I guarantee that if the CP price for either Paras or Rangers was dropped to 2 they'd be used much more.
9 Nov 2017, 02:07 AM
#485
avatar of Outsider_Sidaroth

Posts: 1323 | Subs: 1



Rangers are bad now. :huh:

How so.

Personally I find they are extremely dangerous when flanking.


They are not bad but it feels a bit backwards that Riflemen get better veterancy and cost less, they got their cool perks to make up for it but it's still odd you know? What Cobalt said basically, though Rangers are pretty tough and can get a BAR on top of their Thompsons and are one a doctrine with a lot of potential, CA is nuts, I feel Paratroopers could use a little boost... Heck, I think Airborne is the one USF doctrine that a few buffs could make it solid.
I wish they let the idea of making the MG/ATG drop cost munitions.
9 Nov 2017, 02:28 AM
#486
avatar of ClassyDavid

Posts: 424 | Subs: 2



It's 640 to prevent the Elefant/JT from killing it two shots, That's why their damage also got nerfed, I also don't like the smoke change one bit... If they wanted people to use the LT more often they could give it a new skill, REs are still a bit overpriced reinforcement cost wise to want more than one.


Hmm I can understand that in team games but not in 1v1s but I suppose they did state they wanted to help balances team games. REs do need their reinforcement cost lowered too even though they do follow the standard reinforcement formula. If they had lower reinforcement cost then I'd use them more myself but given Rifles only cost 3 or so MP it's not a hard choice for a combat unit.
9 Nov 2017, 03:06 AM
#487
avatar of Outsider_Sidaroth

Posts: 1323 | Subs: 1



Hmm I can understand that in team games but not in 1v1s but I suppose they did state they wanted to help balances team games. REs do need their reinforcement cost lowered too even though they do follow the standard reinforcement formula. If they had lower reinforcement cost then I'd use them more myself but given Rifles only cost 3 or so MP it's not a hard choice for a combat unit.


Panthers are not an issue in 1vs1 or even 2vs2 but they are dominant in teamgames so they are getting nerfed, it's just how it goes, different modes but into the same bag of balance.
I also think REs should be 20 MP to reinforce, then it would be more likely to have 2 of them due to their low upkeep for extra utility.
9 Nov 2017, 04:09 AM
#488
avatar of ClassyDavid

Posts: 424 | Subs: 2



snip



Response to Jackson:
I can understand the increase of hp for preventing one shots which I do approve of but the factor of the Jackson having a turret makes it harder to flank then other TD's, it's mobility, and range makes it a incredibly dangerous tank destroyer with a underused but amazing ability and great veternacy. It's hp is suppose to be it's weakness alongside lack of armor. When it's HP is increased one of it's weakness is patched and it becomes a nightmare for enemy players to face when used by a skilled player as it becomes more difficult to hunt by enemy tanks as while other TDs weakness is lack of turret and inability to return fire the Jackson can deal with enemy armor flanking it if properly support.

The Jackson shouldn't be used to hunt down enemy tanks by itself but with supporting units. The Jackson is meant to used in a different approach compared to other TDs. It's meant to work in conjugation with Shermans to take down heavier enemy tank with their mobility and benefit of rotating turret. Hell it's more to player skill then the Jackson fault that they overextended it, misplayed, or without proper support thinking it's a Panther.

Jackson hp should be enough not to be one shotted but enough to be three shotted by enemy AT guns as to keep it's weakness but least reduce player frustration against one shot weapons. The Jackson is a good tank destroyer and if it wasn't vulnerable to being one shotted then it'd be in a perfect spot. It's a unique tank destroyer with good strengths and weaknesses that can be exploited.

Response to smoke and USF infantry overall:

Giving smoke to RE gives them a combat role, where they lacked any before
RE already have a combat function of being a cheaper, weaker unit compared to Rifles that can suit a more defensive style with BARs, a AT squad, or flamer unit. They're engineers with some combat ability already especially compared to other factions engineer squads with the exception of OKW

Removing smoke from Riflemen, makes them less of an 1-unit army that puts elite infantry into shame, but still allows them to perform well for cost

How does removing smoke from Rifles to give to REs make elite infantry more attractive? Rifles lack hard close range firepower or long range fire power compared to Rangers or Paratroopers who do fill that gap in USF line up. I use them when I need to fill said gap and removing smoke from Rifles wouldn't incline me to use them more. They are meant for a specific purpose.

This increases the added value of USF Elite Infantry, which were massively overshadowed by Riflemen; rather than being the non-meta option you go for to surprise people, those doctrines now actually become more competitive to non-elite infantry doctrines

Reason why USF elite infantry aren't used is due CP timing, need of MP, and upgrades. Paratroopers provide excellent close ranged or long range support to Rifles and Rangers also fill a gap of close range firepower with Thompson. To be fair Rangers due lack much utility with the very least having incredible received accuracy bonuses but even with REs getting smoke why would I get Rangers or Paratroopers? To use USF elite infantry I have to go two REs then two Rifles to afford them when they are unlocked not because they're poor combat units but due to previous said reasons. A doctrine can be good but reason why some things are meta is because the doctrine has some sort of abuse (Lend Lease), good selection of units and abilities (Lightning War), patch a weakness of a faction (Armor Company or Mobile Assault), or for a call in (Heavy Cavalry). DevM went Armor company almost every time as USF because M10 provided counters to Axis medium tanks without need for teching and could reach critical mass to overwhelm heavier tanks. Not due to Airborne being a poor doctrine (even though it could still be adjusted).

It allows RE to better synergise with USF Elite Infantry

Why would RE need better synergy with USF elite infantry? They synergise well with Rifles already given Rifles have smoke in the first place is why and USF elite infantry covering Rifles less optimal range such as close or long range. It's just taking away synergy from one unit to give to another.

It prevents lategame USF play from degrading into Jacksons & Riflemen

Which Riflemen would be countered by heavy mgs, elite Axis infantry, artillery, and a few AT infantry squads or gun throw in and could also be prevented with Jackson HP not being able to take four AT shots.

It turns USF army synergy from Riflemen-centric to Infantry-centric

Whole point of USF was to have the strongest mainline infantry which is more a design fault but still remains why USF is unique. The USF is based around the Rifleman with his M1 Garand. Again moving smoke to REs won't change much as they already have a uses.

It allows USF late-game to transition to lower-upkeep Rear Echelons, without abandoning their smoke

USF has Shermans to provide good late game smoke and any USF player worth their salt will have a sherman or two in their build and use it. Yes REs are cheaper and have lower up but if I need smoke that desperately I'd get a mortar.

Incentivising players to build tanks other than Jacksons (since both M4 and M8 have access to smoke)

How? Shermans and Scotts have a purpose which is countering medium and lower tanks and infantry for the first and providing long range anti infantry firepower and free smoke barrage in case of the latter. It's lack of skill or abuse of doctrines why Shermans aren't used as much like DevM using M10s or Hans using heavy cavalry. Not saying they are only good because of said doctrine as they're still both highly skilled players.

Finally, Riflemen smoke is massively powerful vs OST, where USF does OK against, and almost useless vs OKW where USF gets their ass handed back to them in spades.

That's more due OKW Volksgrenadiers and the rest of that faction in general and to say smoke is useless against OKW is untrue. OKW still have MGs, a flak HQ, and long ranged oriented squads. To see how useful smoke is against OKW I'd recommend watching me against Luvnest as smoke can block LoS for rakets or cover a advance to get close.

To compensate for early lack of Smoke, the USF mortar is now the best smoke dispenser platform in the game. Try it out, and let us know how the faction feels.

Have to say it does feel great that USF mortar smoke ability seems to be done immediately then glitch out for a few seconds which matters greatly when timing a multi-assault as timing is massive for when a Rifle squad is just entering LoS of that HMG and getting suppressed or getting smoke and allowing them move up quickly to help relocate that HMG and support the other two Rifles moving up. I do applaud this fix greatly. Saying that I don't want to have to go mortar every time but I found myself getting a mortar for smoke then purchasing another RE for smoke purposes as least the mortar smoke is free, has greater range, and doesn't bleed like another RE squad would. I found it pointless to get another RE for their smoke grenade as I'd only get another RE squad for other reasons like another AT squad, minesweeper, extra capping power, etc. but not for another squad to smoke with. Granted yes it's helpful that when I get another RE squad I can use smoke on them but I always have two or more Rifles due to them possessing greater anti-infantry capabilities and better veterancy.
9 Nov 2017, 04:38 AM
#489
avatar of LoopDloop

Posts: 3053

T
H
E
R
E

I
S

A

P
A
T
C
H

C
O
M
I
N
G

:hyper:

lol same. This after my more or less month-long hiatus too :)


The more riflemen you use, the more you bleed and the more you push out the usefulness of elite troops like rangers or paratroopers. You can give your vet 2 riflemen bars, or you can get a vanilla elite trooper squad around 3 CP. You should use Echelons and riflemen in tandem, but then what exactly is the point of elite troops? This new change doesn't really emphasize elite troop usage like he says, it just emphasizes USF using more combined arms.

I can't imagine dropping 400 MP that I had saved up for reinforcements, teching up, and purchasing upgrades to get a ranger squad. It instantly puts you behind unless you were saving a bunch of manpower by not using riflemen or stalling somehow.

Probably doesn't help that the veterancy on Rangers/Paratroopers doesn't even really get good until like vet 3. Which loh and behold Riflemen have one hell of a vet 3 in comparison.

I actually find that elite troops end up reducing bleed in the long run because they trade so much better than rifles when used correctly. For example, decently micro'd rangers attacking lone squads can often force a retreat and kill a lot of models without losing a single man, and can easily take on clumped infantry (looking at you volks blobs) as long as they pop out from a shot blocker or smoke and maybe throw a grenade if significantly outnumbered. Paras with Thompsons are for style points/the meme but are also super good at flanking and wiping squads on retreat especially with their active ability. They're also the same to reinforce as riflemen but come in a slightly less useful doctrine. With 1919s they are stellar support infantry and the only good long range usf infantry options.

The main problem is that it's really hard to field squads of elite infantry as usf since without mechanized (where you won't have any elite infantry) it's really hard to not bleed a ton in the early game since you don't have any support tools except the crappy mortar (i.e. they don't have anything like kubel or clowncar or snipers/a decent mortar or early accessible mgs). This I think is one of usf's major design flaws as every other faction has something like that and usf is really supposed to have the best early game, and it definitely can, but is hamstrung by that lack of bleed-cutting support. As brits, by using a UC and vickers and playing very smart, I can sometimes make it to the platoon cp without losing a single model, or with okw I can make multiple kubels or as soviets a clown car and snipers (the latter applies to ost, who also have mg42s too) but with usf that's basically impossible.
9 Nov 2017, 04:44 AM
#490
avatar of Mistah_S

Posts: 851 | Subs: 1

Also, how is making a Jackson capable of surviving 2 jt/elefant shots and more than anY thing a sturmtiger rocket not promoting such described bad/greedy play?


Lol if it comes to that, I am unistalling
9 Nov 2017, 12:30 PM
#491
avatar of sherlock
Patrion 14

Posts: 550 | Subs: 1



I wish there was a way to make the smaller sandbags not fit against control points, instead, cause it's such a no-brainer.

Conscript sandbags at least force you to think of a way to place them strategically, or force you to tie up your engineers to put up a wire.

The issue with small sandbags could potentially be solved by making control points passable. That way created cover is accessable from both sides. This would also improve vehicle pathing.
9 Nov 2017, 13:13 PM
#492
avatar of Nubb3r

Posts: 141


The issue with small sandbags could potentially be solved by making control points passable. This would also improve vehicle pathing.


People are gonna say that it looks bad, so what about removing them altogether and replacing them with some UI element? Or, if that is no option: Rearranging them inside their capping circle so that they aren't necessarily 100% in the middle every time, but somewhere else where they aren't as egregiously annoying.
9 Nov 2017, 13:21 PM
#493
avatar of sherlock
Patrion 14

Posts: 550 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post9 Nov 2017, 13:13 PMNubb3r


People are gonna say that it looks bad, so what about removing them altogether and replacing them with some UI element? Or, if that is no option: Rearranging them inside their capping circle so that they aren't necessarily 100% in the middle every time, but somewhere else where they aren't as egregiously annoying.

It's a flag pole, it looks bad that infanty can't walk close past it to begin with. Having 1 guy in a squad potentially phase through won't even be noticed by most.
In a game where tanks phase completely through each other, I don't think that anyone has any ground to stand on to argue that it would break immersion if a tank drove through a flag pole.
The thing with this change is that it wouldn't require redisigning all maps. Removing the flag poles or relocating them would create a lot of extra work for mappers.
9 Nov 2017, 13:23 PM
#494
avatar of Cultist_kun

Posts: 295 | Subs: 1

Say what ever you want, but Panther is eather at good spot and other tanks are in bad spot or it is in a bad spot tbh.

The reasons behind that is that Panther is the second most expensive non-doc tank (maybe first I dont remember how much Comet costs now) and its only one purpese tank - AT tank.

While it has nice penetration and nice armor it still has standart damage 160 per hit, meaning that it wont be able to finish enemy tanks faster. Now its moving accuracy was nerfed even more, meaning that hit and run aswell as chasing is even harder to pull off.

What the point of pather anyway now? I mean you pay 180+ fuel for PaK with armor, which could be over-run by cheaper tanks simply by numbers.

For ostheer its still much more usefull to go for Stug+PIV and PaK possible and have combined arms army, which at the end would be more expensive MP vise, but would be awaible much faster.

For OKW I dont see single reason why you should go for pathers since JaghtPanzer would do MUCH-MUCH better and its at least possible to vet in almost all conditions, unlike pather.

So yeah ... pathers is not shit, its not OP or UP, there is just no reason to build it. Like no reason at all, when you have other cheaper and better options.

Pather should has always had at least decent AI capabilities (looking at T34\76, which if doubled melts inf in a seconds with its frontal MGs).
9 Nov 2017, 13:38 PM
#495
avatar of Nubb3r

Posts: 141


It's a flag pole, it looks bad that infanty can't walk close past it to begin with. Having 1 guy in a squad potentially phase through won't even be noticed by most.
In a game where tanks phase completely through each other, I don't think that anyone has any ground to stand on to argue that it would break immersion if a tank drove through a flag pole.
The thing with this change is that it wouldn't require to redisign all maps. Removing the flag poles or relocating them would create a lot of extra work for mappers.


I'm all for the phasing through change and since the others have some severe constraints, I don't see relic implementing them at all.

Say what ever you want, but Panther is eather at good spot and other tanks are in bad spot or it is in a bad spot tbh.

The reasons behind that is that Panther is the second most expensive non-doc tank (maybe first I dont remember how much Comet costs now) and its only one purpese tank - AT tank.

While it has nice penetration and nice armor it still has standart damage 160 per hit, meaning that it wont be able to finish enemy tanks faster. Now its moving accuracy was nerfed even more, meaning that hit and run aswell as chasing is even harder to pull off.

What the point of pather anyway now? I mean you pay 180+ fuel for PaK with armor, which could be over-run by cheaper tanks simply by numbers.

For ostheer its still much more usefull to go for Stug+PIV and PaK possible and have combined arms army, which at the end would be more expensive MP vise, but would be awaible much faster.

For OKW I dont see single reason why you should go for pathers since JaghtPanzer would do MUCH-MUCH better and its at least possible to vet in almost all conditions, unlike pather.

So yeah ... pathers is not shit, its not OP or UP, there is just no reason to build it. Like no reason at all, when you have other cheaper and better options.


I'm not trying to defend the change or attitutude behind the patch notes, but every time I buy a Panther instead of something else I think about high armor, long range, low vulnerability to indirect fire, a turret, heavy crush anti tank option. The heavy crush is seriously undervalued, but when you have a few spare moments of low action, you can level the hedges on maps like angoville, langreskaya, or crossroads to favor your playstyle with lots of open fields.
However, that is if I can ever afford the Panther soon enough. Most times it is outmatched by higher numbers of tanks before it is even built, at least in my games.

The cost aspect is not only about the Panther itself, but it's Tier. In my average game, I can look to afford one item in the overpriced shop that is T4. And that item better satisfy all my needs for a long time, but T4 units are all rather specialized and pricey, so you not only don't get the best bang for your buck, but are stuck with it for a quite long time - sometimes too long to get any other option.

This is the reason why I belive we should wait and see how the tech cost restructuring works before bashing on Panther design flaws or mindset, since it's opportunity costs will be mitigated a little bit.
9 Nov 2017, 14:01 PM
#496
avatar of Cultist_kun

Posts: 295 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post9 Nov 2017, 13:38 PMNubb3r

... but T4 units are all rather specialized and pricey, so you not only don't get the best bang for your buck ...


Here is where problem of Panther located. Panther is by all means not the best option, its not best AT tank for both Ost\OKW, its not the most cost effective tank for both faction, its sometimes hard to vet and list can go on.

Not to mention that 2 StuGs can deliver huge punch, while 1 panther which costs much more, would have same perfomance in AT just like single stug
9 Nov 2017, 15:25 PM
#497
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post9 Nov 2017, 13:38 PMNubb3r

...
I'm not trying to defend the change or attitutude behind the patch notes, but every time I buy a Panther instead of something else I think about high armor, long range, low vulnerability to indirect fire, a turret, heavy crush anti tank option. The heavy crush is seriously undervalued, but when you have a few spare moments of low action, you can level the hedges on maps like angoville, langreskaya, or crossroads to favor your playstyle with lots of open fields.
...

So the Panther can do what UKF engineer can do from vet 0 for free. Sure if I need a tractor I will get a panther.
9 Nov 2017, 15:28 PM
#498
avatar of Pedro_Jedi

Posts: 543



Response to Jackson:
I can understand the increase of hp for preventing one shots which I do approve of but the factor of the Jackson having a turret makes it harder to flank then other TD's, it's mobility, and range makes it a incredibly dangerous tank destroyer with a underused but amazing ability and great veternacy. It's hp is suppose to be it's weakness alongside lack of armor. When it's HP is increased one of it's weakness is patched and it becomes a nightmare for enemy players to face when used by a skilled player as it becomes more difficult to hunt by enemy tanks as while other TDs weakness is lack of turret and inability to return fire the Jackson can deal with enemy armor flanking it if properly support.

The Jackson shouldn't be used to hunt down enemy tanks by itself but with supporting units. The Jackson is meant to used in a different approach compared to other TDs. It's meant to work in conjugation with Shermans to take down heavier enemy tank with their mobility and benefit of rotating turret. Hell it's more to player skill then the Jackson fault that they overextended it, misplayed, or without proper support thinking it's a Panther.

Jackson hp should be enough not to be one shotted but enough to be three shotted by enemy AT guns as to keep it's weakness but least reduce player frustration against one shot weapons. The Jackson is a good tank destroyer and if it wasn't vulnerable to being one shotted then it'd be in a perfect spot. It's a unique tank destroyer with good strengths and weaknesses that can be exploited.


I think that justifying the Jackson HP buff by the risk of being one-shoted by only one unit in a OK doctrine was kinda exagerated. Classy David, as per his alias, put it on immesurable better terms than I'd be capable of.
9 Nov 2017, 16:52 PM
#499
avatar of MarkedRaptor

Posts: 320



Here is where problem of Panther located. Panther is by all means not the best option, its not best AT tank for both Ost\OKW, its not the most cost effective tank for both faction, its sometimes hard to vet and list can go on.

Not to mention that 2 StuGs can deliver huge punch, while 1 panther which costs much more, would have same perfomance in AT just like single stug


I think they are afraid of creating a tank that literally does everything. If say, the panther was really amazing at killing tanks right? But, it does some light anti infantry damage as well. If you get 2-3 panthers then the game is over. Nothing could stand up to that anymore. It's the same reason the comet got nerfed over and over again after release. Cuz the comet covered all bases.

So then the panther gets pushed into a weird spot because they are afraid of what it could become if they made it too good at it's role. Which technically hurts Ostheers late game that they are supposed to be strongest (ignoring commanders).

hopefully decreasing its reload speed on its main gun helps.
9 Nov 2017, 17:19 PM
#500
avatar of Zaatos

Posts: 13

1 change i think would really help all around would be to remove the blitzkrieg ability from heavy axis tanks(Panthers,tigers). I think this ability should really only belong on medium tanks especially those meant for flanking. (T34, m7, Sherman's) It's extremely annoying when a have a 1hp tiger not only use blitzkrieg to outrun you're smaller tanks but use their smoke ability too. Why some of the beefiest units in the game get a speed boost while smaller ones that need to flank to penetrate armor seems like really bad design. I don't really have a comment on the rest of the panther nerfs other than i think just raising the pop cap is a really good way to fix some of their issues.

Also t34 ram could use a buff so that if you're chasing a tank that's reversing it can actually hit it instead of overheating it's engine.

PAGES (85)down
2 users are browsing this thread: 2 guests

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

866 users are online: 866 guests
1 post in the last 24h
11 posts in the last week
27 posts in the last month
Registered members: 50002
Welcome our newest member, rwintoday1
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM