Posts: 5279
Simply lowering the cost or increasing Damage/Accuracy/RoF is a bit boring tho.
When it comes to making a unit more appealing I'd want to see more utility, rather than a simple buff to stats. Maybe a Hull down ability to increase AA and add suppression? Or a focus fire ability to instantly pin down a selected squad for 30 munition.
Posts: 1802 | Subs: 1
While cool, something like that is more work and harder to balance
Posts: 290
If you greatly buff Ostwind, Ostwind rush will be the new meta and people will demand a buff for PZIV and so on.
Posts: 1392
Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1
There are 2 things: Centaure performs too good versus armor, Ostwind too bad.
Posts: 2358
Posts: 1392
Another 2 things Centaur has the armor values of Cromwell and smaller target size and ostwind has lower armor values and the same size.
Posts: 1392
I would say that 222 are just good to deal with AA, compared to ostwind the latter performs mediocre.
Maybe im wrong but arent ostwinds supposed to be "better" against armor compared centaurs (I mean, one has an big autocannon and the other has a quad gun)
Posts: 5279
I agree, but I was just saying that adding minor utility to units make them more "appealing" to use. That's the problem I see in many balance threads. People want to "see" a unit more and have fun with it, so they ask for buffs.
If you greatly buff Ostwind, Ostwind rush will be the new meta and people will demand a buff for PZIV and so on.
But by giving units some niche abilities without directly buffing them, almost everyone will be happy.
I'd stay say that for Ostwind, a Lockdown ability which gives it a suppression arc (not 360) with "reduced" range would be a good idea. Kind of like an HMG42 with reduced range. But still, just an idea which won't happen. My point is to buff them by giving them abilities.
For example, after years of release PzGrens are getting a buff which improves them while they operate near a vehicle. That's a great idea and encourage combined arms.
Posts: 607
If game would be logical, then Ostwind would have same fire-rate as Bofos has ingame and Bofors has same as Ostwind has currently.
Bofors: 120 rounds/min
3,7cm FlaK 43: 250 rounds/min
Posts: 1392
According to panzerworld, the flak 43 shot at 150 rounds/min.
https://panzerworld.com/flakpanzer-iv
Either way, it should be a bit faster if we were going to stick to realism.
Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8
The normal Version had 160 rounds/min, later versiosn had around 200+.
So or so, it shot faster and was better than the bofors.
Maybe it's 'cause the Axis players aren't a bunch of forum crybabies, and they keep their cool and fight the uphill battle, unlike some of their "allied" counterparts.
Posts: 607
Posts: 1392
Source:
Dude, trust me.
Posts: 607
Posts: 1392
I no speaka-da-deutsch
Anyway, any given unit will have to be balanced for performance, not for what the best possible IRL example of it was.
Otherwise the t-34s would all be 85mm versions by default, etc.
Posts: 607
And Bofors is balanced? The hole unit is everything, but not balanced. On one hand it is OP on the other it is bad.
It is like the Vickers, this MG is also not balanced. Way too much DPS and on the other hand useless...
Posts: 1392
...
Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8
And Bofors is balanced? The hole unit is everything, but not balanced. On one hand it is OP on the other it is bad.
It is like the Vickers, this MG is also not balanced. Way too much DPS and on the other hand useless...
Maybe it's 'cause the Axis players aren't a bunch of forum crybabies, and they keep their cool and fight the uphill battle, unlike some of their "allied" counterparts.
Posts: 607
 |
|
|
73 | ||
 |
|
|
40 | ||
|
|
|
|
35 | ||
|
|
|
|
21 | ||
|
|
|
|
21 | ||
 |
|
|
12 | ||
|
|
|
|
564 | ||
 |
|
|
85 | ||
 |
|
|
73 | ||
|
|
|
|
15 |
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
