Login

russian armor

Feedback for Commander Revamppatch

PAGES (107)down
23 Oct 2018, 12:23 PM
#1821
avatar of Tiger Baron

Posts: 3145 | Subs: 2



Something something planet smasher's something artillery pit


I was expecting this, but at least I'm not posting the same exact thing every week or so.

I just put it in some relevance to the discussion, you can go ahead and even quote me if you want on that.

Plus I would say that I am not the only one of that opinion and it's a serious matter for the viability of the entire British Army, not just one commander or unit.
23 Oct 2018, 13:20 PM
#1822
avatar of jagd wölfe

Posts: 1660



Something something planet smasher's something artillery pit


Lol true
23 Oct 2018, 17:48 PM
#1823
avatar of Tiger Baron

Posts: 3145 | Subs: 2



Lol true


If it's so true then why not quote me funny man? Show me how true it is that I've repeated the same exact thing about the Artillery Pit every week or 2.

I have mentioned it along with the 221/223, Panzergrenadier repair ability, forward retreat point for both Eastern Front Armies, Forward Supply Station for the Ostheer, Panzer IV F1 and multiple others a few times each at the very least, incorporating them into different suggestions and ideas that have always been relevant to the discussion at hand but I have never, ever repeated the same exact thing each week.
23 Oct 2018, 18:02 PM
#1824
avatar of JibberJabberJobber

Posts: 1614 | Subs: 3



I was expecting this, but at least I'm not posting the same exact thing every week or so.

I just put it in some relevance to the discussion, you can go ahead and even quote me if you want on that.

Plus I would say that I am not the only one of that opinion and it's a serious matter for the viability of the entire British Army, not just one commander or unit.


You may be presenting more arguments, but I think testing what you're suggesting is currently out of scope, considering it's a commander revamp patch and the only two (?) changes outside the revamped commanders were rather small and critical. It's mostly a community patch, with a balance team that doesn't have full authority over what they can and can't do.

---

That said - IMO

I think such an artillery pit would simply be ignored by British players and UKF would just become the fourth faction with a mobile mortar. A static emplacement that gives 15% more range and only gives extra protection against small arms doesn't really seem worth the 100mp investment, especially when only getting one mortar. The strong, static mortar pit is part of what makes UKF unique, so if you want to maintain that uniqueness while giving both options, you'd have to atleast make the mobile option weaker than those of other factions, while making the static option stronger. This seems pretty hard to do right to me.

If you simply want the mortar pit to be more flexible, I think a dismantle option would be a step in the right direction. That way UKF has more control over their popcap and can react better to shifting engagements. The resources you get back could be made to scale with vet, starting at 33% (at 100% hp) up to 66% for example. This way, the Brit player will try to get the most out of it, while giving the axis player more incentive to kill it. Ofcourse, the dismantle option would take some time and can't be selected while being braced or in combat. What do you think about such a change?
23 Oct 2018, 18:25 PM
#1825
avatar of Tiger Baron

Posts: 3145 | Subs: 2



You may be presenting more arguments, but I think testing what you're suggesting is currently out of scope, considering it's a commander revamp patch and the only two (?) changes outside the revamped commanders were rather small and critical. It's mostly a community patch, with a balance team that doesn't have full authority over what they can and can't do.

---

That said - IMO

I think such an artillery pit would simply be ignored by British players and UKF would just become the fourth faction with a mobile mortar. A static emplacement that gives 15% more range and only gives extra protection against small arms doesn't really seem worth the 100mp investment, especially when only getting one mortar. The strong, static mortar pit is part of what makes UKF unique, so if you want to maintain that uniqueness while giving both options, you'd have to atleast make the mobile option weaker than those of other factions, while making the static option stronger. This seems pretty hard to do right to me.

If you simply want the mortar pit to be more flexible, I think a dismantle option would be a step in the right direction. That way UKF has more control over their popcap and can react better to shifting engagements. The resources you get back could be made to scale with vet, starting at 33% (at 100% hp) up to 66% for example. This way, the Brit player will try to get the most out of it, while giving the axis player more incentive to kill it. Ofcourse, the dismantle option would take some time and can't be selected while being braced or in combat. What do you think about such a change?


I don't feel the need to present any other arguments, the mod is on the workshop and available for testing and I've done it, and like the OKW trucks being able to unsetup and move it feels organic, strange but something natural that has been there from the very start. Further more wherever you go and search for British mortar, be it here, the Steam forums or even reddit, you will see that the discussion ends with the same damn conclusion, a mobile mortar.

So while your idea of a withdraw and refit for it sounds good on paper it's still a gimmick, and as it's proven we need less gimmicks and more tried and tested solutions which are implemented everywhere else but for some reason, not for the British.

About the Artillery Pit specifically, I believe that it could be balanced so that the mortar teams would be cheap, say around 220-240 manpower but limited, similar to how the USF's mortar functioned before it was brought back into a normal mortar state. Difference here would be that garrisoning them into the Artillery Pit (which doesn't necessarily need to be 100 manpower exactly, could be more or less depending on the balance) would bring them to their full potential, maintaining the British's uniqueness while not sacrificing practical and viable mobile indirect fire.

So in short, the mortar team without being garrisoned could act as a mobile smoke dispenser which the British currently lack, with limited range and perhaps normal or a bit quicker tear down time, I am not so sure about the rate of fire however, I just know that the mortar's range was upped later in the war with the use of a new charge. While garrisoned into the Artillery Pit they would regain their normal range like other mortars and perhaps gain the ability to fire creeping smoke barrages and/or White Phosphorus like it's currently implemented, I think that that will give you a sense of a good investment into the Arty Pit plus the slight protection they will also provide to the mortars without making it feel like a waste.

In general if you want to remain mobile you sacrifice power but have mobility, if you sacrifice mobility you gain power, that's basically what the essence of the British is, especially with the Bofors, AEC and the Anvil and Hammer tactics, the system would just be a bit more flexible that it would not lock you out, that's all, but you would still need to make a choice instead of being forced into one.
23 Oct 2018, 18:38 PM
#1826
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1

ca you pls move the mortar debate out of this thread since it off topic?
23 Oct 2018, 19:00 PM
#1827
avatar of Tiger Baron

Posts: 3145 | Subs: 2

jump backJump back to quoted post23 Oct 2018, 18:38 PMVipper
ca you pls move the mortar debate out of this thread since it off topic?


It's part of the British Army's flawed design and this is probably the last chance it will have to be fixed so I don't see why we should not discuss it here, the snares are also technically "out of scope" since this is a Commander Revamp Patch, not a fix bad Army design patch but it was still addressed because it's an issue. The "Panic" Puma as well is not in scope of either commander but it too was tied to tech so it's not such a cheesy unit to use.
23 Oct 2018, 20:26 PM
#1828
avatar of Outsider_Sidaroth

Posts: 1323 | Subs: 1

My idea is easy enough to apply and I feel, after toying extensively with CavRifles, to be an adequate trade for having cheaper Tommy Guns on Rifles with their amazing Vet.
23 Oct 2018, 20:59 PM
#1829
avatar of CobaltX105

Posts: 87

I'd really like to see Cavalry Riflemen moved from the same selection group as regular Riflemen, mostly because the two units serve different functions when used in conjunction, and having to seperate them is a needless bit of micro when in combat.
23 Oct 2018, 22:36 PM
#1830
avatar of Outsider_Sidaroth

Posts: 1323 | Subs: 1

I'd really like to see Cavalry Riflemen moved from the same selection group as regular Riflemen, mostly because the two units serve different functions when used in conjunction, and having to seperate them is a needless bit of micro when in combat.


I hate they made Officer Squads part of Riflemen selection for the same reason, kinda beats the purpose of having smoke on officers, when you "blob" them with your Riflemen by default.
24 Oct 2018, 00:26 AM
#1831
avatar of LoopDloop

Posts: 3053



I hate they made Officer Squads part of Riflemen selection for the same reason, kinda beats the purpose of having smoke on officers, when you "blob" them with your Riflemen by default.

This is what control groups are for.
24 Oct 2018, 12:25 PM
#1832
avatar of jagd wölfe

Posts: 1660



If it's so true then why not quote me funny man? Show me how true it is that I've repeated the same exact thing about the Artillery Pit every week or 2.

I have mentioned it along with the 221/223, Panzergrenadier repair ability, forward retreat point for both Eastern Front Armies, Forward Supply Station for the Ostheer, Panzer IV F1 and multiple others a few times each at the very least, incorporating them into different suggestions and ideas that have always been relevant to the discussion at hand but I have never, ever repeated the same exact thing each week.

Chill dude
25 Oct 2018, 19:30 PM
#1833
25 Oct 2018, 19:52 PM
#1834
avatar of capiqua
Senior Mapmaker Badge

Posts: 985 | Subs: 2

Valentine
-Population from 19 to 21.
-Rear armour from 180 to 120
-Reload from 5.6/6 to 5.
-Population from 8 to 7


Two populations?

already fixed changuelog :S
25 Oct 2018, 20:18 PM
#1835
avatar of Kirrik

Posts: 573

Whats the point in Urban defence booby traps anymore? If they cost 45 munitions and deal less damage to infantry compared to mines and useless against vehicles... what the heck their point?
Why would anyone even use booby trap compared to nondoc mines engineers have?
If their performance was unchanged their cost should've been reduced to like 15 minutions at best
25 Oct 2018, 21:17 PM
#1836
avatar of Outsider_Sidaroth

Posts: 1323 | Subs: 1

I'm so glad Covering Fire was rescued from suffering a fate similar to Volley Fire, now CavRifles can be useful even when they can't close in using their smoke, sitting in cover.
25 Oct 2018, 21:20 PM
#1837
avatar of Tiger Baron

Posts: 3145 | Subs: 2

About the OKW -

Yesterday I had a match where my opponent tried to launch a Sturmtiger's rocket at my tank which was at a higher ground and failed to hit it.

Now I am not sure if the rocket actually hit an small object, as other people have pointed out already which prematurely detonates the rocket, or the rocket just hit the ground but I don't think the engine would be dumb enough to not calculate where you want the projectile to hit as to send it to that position without hitting the ground.

So unless this is fixed the Sturmtiger is rendered ineffective at least 50% of the time since you need to fire on flat ground without any obstructions in the way, which happens less often than so.

I again will suggest a lockdown ability to increase it's range and to circumvent this bug, unless the unit has the same problem of a low flying projectile similar to the raketenwerfer which causes it to hit the ground most of the time.

If not for a Tiger I E as suggested before I think at least a mechanized combat group of Panzerfusiliers inside an open topped 251 Halftrack might be a good alternative while the Sturmtiger is saved up for either Overwatch (somehow) or the new OKW commander that will come in December. This will solve the issue of the OKW not having a mobile reinforcement point while still being unique and also the need to change the Panzerfusiliers from basically a mainline replacement infantry unit to some sort of Recon/Elite infantry unit.

On the other hand Overwatch is a bit better now but still perhaps it's better to also combine Forward Receivers along with the Goliaths and Early Warning to free up a slot for the Sturmtiger, so a slot could also be opened up in Elite Armor.

I also wanted to mention that the Elite Panzergrenadier Division "Großdeutschland" had a Panzerfüsilier regiment, so using some inspiration from that could prove viable, that is in the use of Panzerfüsiliers and Tigers in the commander.
25 Oct 2018, 21:23 PM
#1838
avatar of ShadowLinkX37
Director of Moderation Badge

Posts: 4183 | Subs: 4

Scuttle pak 43 serves what purpose? If you're being forced to take it down either it's being bombed by indirect a ton which will always happen, or you're getting pushed off your entrenchment.

If you get forced away by indirect the indirect will just shoot at the new Pak 43 position. If you get forced away from a push 20 seconds won't be fast enough before it gets cleared by advancing infantry. 20 seconds also isn't fast enough to dodge airstrikes etc. MAYBE you dodge 240/concentrated RNG bombs etc depending on how the first shell drops, but that's about it.

KV-8 pen to 70/90/140: Again why? This is only really makes sense if you want it to engage medium armor with it. And while it won't be demolishing tanks left and right, I don't think making KV-8 more formidable in the tank department after its recent buffs to damage received and flamer are positive for the game. I'd rather not go back to flametank meta.

OKW JLI in overwatch: 300MP -> 250MP, 2CP -> 1CP. While I think JLI needed some attention, I think a drop in 50 MP might be a bit much. They're not good frontliners, but just like falls, with a good meatshield that is volks they can really be tough to beat.
25 Oct 2018, 21:28 PM
#1839
avatar of miragefla
Developer Relic Badge

Posts: 1304 | Subs: 13

Scuttle pak 43 serves what purpose? If you're being forced to take it down either it's being bombed by indirect a ton which will always happen, or you're getting pushed off your entrenchment.

If you get forced away by indirect the indirect will just shoot at the new Pak 43 position. If you get forced away from a push 20 seconds won't be fast enough before it gets cleared by advancing infantry. 20 seconds also isn't fast enough to dodge airstrikes etc. MAYBE you dodge 240/concentrated RNG bombs etc depending on how the first shell drops, but that's about it.


It's so it doesn't eat population when it's done its shock value and you can break it down if you feel you no longer need it for a partial refund.
25 Oct 2018, 21:33 PM
#1840
avatar of Kirrik

Posts: 573

What about booby trap, with its current stats you might as well replace it with armored vehicle detection, it might be at very least useful in combination with M-42. A 45 munition for a trap that is weaker than mine on a unit that can plant mines is like M-42 stuck in Tier 2 with ZiS and costing 450mp
PAGES (107)down
3 users are browsing this thread: 3 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

822 users are online: 822 guests
0 post in the last 24h
7 posts in the last week
34 posts in the last month
Registered members: 49122
Welcome our newest member, Harda621
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM