Login

russian armor

What about snares?

30 Sep 2018, 18:25 PM
#21
avatar of gbem

Posts: 1979

jump backJump back to quoted post30 Sep 2018, 18:19 PMVipper


PLS try to use less offensive language.

And no I am no, I am simply pointing out that Valentine is currently one of the best "crushers" in the game.

I suggest you try the unit yourself and draw you own conclusions.


I wasnt trying to be offensive... i was asking if you were bitching about the valentine... anyways being a good crusher doesnt make it a good tank... and ukf sucks big time for me to play it without getting cancer
30 Sep 2018, 18:36 PM
#22
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post30 Sep 2018, 18:25 PMgbem


I wasnt trying to be offensive... i was asking if you were bitching about the valentine... anyways being a good crusher doesnt make it a good tank... and ukf sucks big time for me to play it without getting cancer

The unit got a 50% more AOE, cp lower by 1, pop down by 67%, more sight while being able to move, lower XP value by 56% and barrage from vet 0. It needs to looked at all vet levels or it can easily prove problematic. A unit does not need to good to be cheesy.
30 Sep 2018, 18:55 PM
#23
avatar of elchino7
Senior Moderator Badge

Posts: 8154 | Subs: 2

jump backJump back to quoted post30 Sep 2018, 18:09 PMVipper

That is inaccurate "Valentine" still has a rotation of 38 which was the problematic value with the M10. Things get even worse since the unit goes up to 8.4 speed, 45.6 rotation, target size 16.2 with veterancy and that is without even using war speed, while it can call in barrages while it is roaming around enemy units.


Was thinking more of Cromwell/Comet. Forgot about that thing. Still that is "only" problematic once and if the commander patch is released.
30 Sep 2018, 19:11 PM
#24
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1



Was thinking more of Cromwell/Comet. Forgot about that thing. Still that is "only" problematic once and if the commander patch is released.

Lets hope that Relic will decide to have a better look at the unit before releasing the unit. The numbers I provided thou apply to live game also the problem simply is magnified in the Revamp patch ...
30 Sep 2018, 19:19 PM
#25
avatar of JohnSmith

Posts: 1273



Was thinking more of Cromwell/Comet. Forgot about that thing. Still that is "only" problematic once and if the commander patch is released.


Also there's the big if people are doing it. It's been theory-crafted that it'd be the case, but with no in-game application examples.There's been a few in-game tests around the idea, and so far this combo is only useful to chase up retreating units, then to barrage the enemy point (.e.g. medtruck). Other bombardment units do it better. With the valentine, it is simply ineffective otherwise, costs too much time, micro, and resources. Also UKF not being generally useful derails that idea too. It may be different in 4on4 when four valentines are on the field, one for each player, but i doubt i'd ever face any 4UKF in the current meta.
1 Oct 2018, 05:27 AM
#26
avatar of LoopDloop

Posts: 3053

jump backJump back to quoted post30 Sep 2018, 18:09 PMVipper

That is inaccurate "Valentine" still has a rotation of 38 which was the problematic value with the M10. Things get even worse since the unit goes up to 8.4 speed, 45.6 rotation, target size 16.2 with veterancy and that is without even using war speed, while it can call in barrages while it is roaming around enemy units.

Yeah well it sucks at everything else.
1 Oct 2018, 06:08 AM
#27
avatar of TheGentlemenTroll

Posts: 1044 | Subs: 1

UKF is getting snares next patch so they should be fine, and its the PTRS could snare tanks then they would be ridiculously op.
1 Oct 2018, 06:25 AM
#28
avatar of LoopDloop

Posts: 3053

Yeah most of these suggestions are rather far fetched and would break balance and just make the whole game feel inconsistent as heck. Snares are supposed to be a reliable way to slow tanks down if they’ve already been damaged, hence why they always apply engine damage even if they don’t pen or hit the front. Snares based on rear armor attacks would be hard to pull off and frustratingly inconsistent to play against at the same time, and immobilization by PTRS would be blatantly overpowered because you could just spam the ability back to back with all your penals. The only reason it’s balanced on the AEC at all is because it’s a very vulnerable light vehicle and has to pull off two shots to make it work. Penals with PTRSs aren’t nearly as vulnerable toctanks as the AEC is and there could easily be multiple of them.
1 Oct 2018, 07:36 AM
#29
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1


Yeah well it sucks at everything else.

That opinion is probably based on the fact that you have not used the unit enough.

Even if it does sucks having a unit that has to be used in cheesy way to useful is bad design and it should be looked at.
1 Oct 2018, 08:31 AM
#30
avatar of gbem

Posts: 1979

jump backJump back to quoted post1 Oct 2018, 07:36 AMVipper

That opinion is probably based on the fact that you have not used the unit enough.

Even if it does sucks having a unit that has to be used in cheesy way to useful is bad design and it should be looked at.


If you think the valentine doesnt suck then you need to play the brits more...
1 Oct 2018, 08:39 AM
#31
avatar of ElSlayer

Posts: 1605 | Subs: 1

I can't remember last time when my snare hit enemy vehicle's rear armor.
1 Oct 2018, 08:48 AM
#32
avatar of JohnSmith

Posts: 1273

jump backJump back to quoted post1 Oct 2018, 08:31 AMgbem


If you think the valentine doesnt suck then you need to play the brits more...


I agree, people attempt to defend the (modded) Valentine as a good unit, but they only look at the stats on paper and schemantics. They most likely never played it ingame. But it is in-game an incredibly sucky unit with no real use but very specific edge cases for very specific scenarios that would have been solved better with other units and commander abilities.

It can't do anything angainst infantry; once it gets close to any infantry unit to get rid of them, it gets snared to its certain death. The gun feels useless, and it can't even crush most things, making pathfinding tricky in busy situations. Even any attempt to crush infantry in live is a death sentence - best to keep the unit at bay. It is also useless against most tanks from the same category; either it misses, it doesn't pen it, doesn't damage it enough, or is generally crappy DPS. The (mod) Valentine is close to the performance of the SU76 a few years ago for when it was a meme unit - good on paper, but incredibly sucky ingame.
1 Oct 2018, 08:55 AM
#33
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post1 Oct 2018, 08:31 AMgbem


If you think the valentine doesnt suck then you need to play the brits more...

Have you actually played with valentine in the mod?

And once more Valentine's efficiency in crushing infantry is problematic regardless of its overall performance.
1 Oct 2018, 09:08 AM
#34
avatar of Katitof

Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8

jump backJump back to quoted post1 Oct 2018, 08:55 AMVipper

Have you actually played with valentine in the mod?

And once more Valentine's efficiency in crushing infantry is problematic regardless of its overall performance.


Have you?

It can't crush infantry in mod.

Please don't spread misinformation.
1 Oct 2018, 09:31 AM
#35
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1


Have you?

It can't crush infantry in mod.

Please don't spread misinformation.

I have played with the Valentine in the mod, I have not attempted to crush infantry thou because I don't like cheesy tactics and the 50% more AOE in the main gun allows the unit to deal with infantry.

The fact that MOD have remove "crush humans" (undocumented) simply prove my point that effectiveness of the unit to crush human in live is too high and it should be looked at.

It also proves why snares being able to cause engine damage frontally is necessary which this thread suggested removing.

On the other hand it is true Valentine can not crush humans in the MOD.
1 Oct 2018, 14:34 PM
#36
avatar of ferwiner
Donator 11

Posts: 2885

So the problem doesn't exist in live because both the unit and its commander are absolute rubbish and it doesn't exist in the mod, because it has been fixed. So why is that even discussed, especially in a thread aimed at something completely different?
1 Oct 2018, 14:43 PM
#37
avatar of JohnSmith

Posts: 1273

So the problem doesn't exist in live because both the unit and its commander are absolute rubbish and it doesn't exist in the mod, because it has been fixed. So why is that even discussed, especially in a thread aimed at something completely different?


I'm glad that the topic is over. It should be OK to continue talking snares now.

To answer your question: People started to go off topic by wrongly point out that Valentines are the best crushers. When in fact, these people clearly weren't playing the game at all because the unit simply can't do that despite telling others to play the mod to try the valentine. Then people still try to shoehorn that Valentine is OP in a thread about snares. ow.

On topic wise, I think there are too many snares in the game as it currently stands in the mod. I understand UKF needed a snare, and OKW got a snare a while back too, and that Penals needed some AT and snares. Consequently, there's doctorinal units with snares everywhere which may be too much. Perhaps a change, as recommended by the OP, to have snares have less impact on frontal hits, may change my perception.


1 Oct 2018, 15:06 PM
#38
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1

So the problem doesn't exist in live because both the unit and its commander are absolute rubbish and it doesn't exist in the mod, because it has been fixed. So why is that even discussed, especially in a thread aimed at something completely different?


This was not presented as problem but an explanation in response to OP suggestion to remove engine damage critical from snare that hit the front of the vehicle. It was used to explain why that would be a bad idea.

Valentine was brought up since in live it the best crusher in the game and that is an issue regardless if the unit and/or commander sucks. I guess that Relic understood the issue and removed crush human from the unit although in "ninja" change.

The unit's mobility remains ridiculously high even at the revamp patch especially when vetted and it is combined with "war speed".

The rest is people perceiving everything as an attack to their favorite side.
1 Oct 2018, 20:15 PM
#39
avatar of distrofio

Posts: 2358

Wow, I am really glad of you all whom took some time and answer to this thread, even the tank crush sidetopic was interesting. Also Im glad katitof participated, since I truly respect his point of view even though hes harsh with his comments.
Changing snares turned out to be a giant monster to be dealt with haha
1 Oct 2018, 23:03 PM
#40
avatar of LoopDloop

Posts: 3053

So the problem doesn't exist in live because both the unit and its commander are absolute rubbish and it doesn't exist in the mod, because it has been fixed. So why is that even discussed, especially in a thread aimed at something completely different?

+1
1 user is browsing this thread: 1 guest

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

667 users are online: 667 guests
0 post in the last 24h
5 posts in the last week
33 posts in the last month
Registered members: 49150
Welcome our newest member, Bohanan
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM