Login

russian armor

Buff Ostwind

PAGES (11)down
7 Nov 2018, 20:02 PM
#81
avatar of thedarkarmadillo

Posts: 5279

jump backJump back to quoted post7 Nov 2018, 08:42 AMRMMLz
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.


While cool, something like that is more work and harder to balance
10 Nov 2018, 11:58 AM
#82
avatar of RMMLz

Posts: 1802 | Subs: 1



While cool, something like that is more work and harder to balance


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.
10 Nov 2018, 13:40 PM
#83
avatar of Thamor

Posts: 290

jump backJump back to quoted post10 Nov 2018, 11:58 AMRMMLz
If you greatly buff Ostwind, Ostwind rush will be the new meta and people will demand a buff for PZIV and so on.


Where do you get the idea that if Ostwind would perform as well as Centaur next buff would be for PzIV? Ostwind sucks anyway in AT, but it should for it's cost excel against infantry which at this moment it's not performing that well. It's not bad, but it cost too much is weak vs aircraft and for Ostheer you would almost never build it as you need AT with AI --> PzIV more.
10 Nov 2018, 16:57 PM
#84
avatar of Widerstreit

Posts: 1392

There are 2 things: Centaure performs too good versus armor, Ostwind too bad.
10 Nov 2018, 17:11 PM
#85
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1

There are 2 things: Centaure performs too good versus armor, Ostwind too bad.

Another 2 things Centaur has the armor values of Cromwell and smaller target size and ostwind has lower armor values and the same size.
10 Nov 2018, 17:27 PM
#86
avatar of distrofio

Posts: 2358

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)
10 Nov 2018, 17:29 PM
#87
avatar of Widerstreit

Posts: 1392

jump backJump back to quoted post10 Nov 2018, 17:11 PMVipper

Another 2 things Centaur has the armor values of Cromwell and smaller target size and ostwind has lower armor values and the same size.


OK... there are 100 more things.

1. Ostwind needs same fire-rate and dps (without suppression) as OKW-base to get useful dps. [I didn't looked into the stats now, but that would increase the number of shoots befor reload-animation] Removing the ability for the 2nd-gun suppression fire. Instead give it a cool-down ability to suppress by main-gun.

2. Bofors needs same weapon as Ostwind has now. So all other FlaKs don't look like shit.

3. Centaure needs less penetration, so all other things don't look like shit.

10 Nov 2018, 17:31 PM
#88
avatar of Widerstreit

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)


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
13 Nov 2018, 06:52 AM
#89
avatar of thedarkarmadillo

Posts: 5279

jump backJump back to quoted post10 Nov 2018, 11:58 AMRMMLz


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.


Personally I'm a huge fan of ability based buffs. Buffs that don't simply make the unit easier to use but instead raise the skill ceiling, imo that's how OKWs 4th and 5th vet should have been handled.

That said I don't know that the OST wind needs much more than a slight bursty buff at this point. Could be wrong but I feel it's close to a good spot
13 Nov 2018, 15:28 PM
#90
avatar of murky depths

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


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.
13 Nov 2018, 20:22 PM
#91
avatar of Widerstreit

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.


The normal Version had 160 rounds/min, later versiosn had around 200+.

So or so, it shot faster and was better than the bofors.
13 Nov 2018, 20:56 PM
#92
avatar of Katitof

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.

Source:

Dude, trust me.
13 Nov 2018, 20:59 PM
#93
avatar of murky depths

Posts: 607

This source lists that it shot faster but that Bofors was more destructive and had better range: http://military.wikia.com/wiki/3.7_cm_Flak_18/36/37/43

Though none of this matters in the context of game balance since one is a mobile unit and the other an emplacement, which will determine who gets a better gun more than what the reality was.

Oh well.

IMO, Ostwind could work with a buff that is dependent on its mobility. So make it somewhat similar to the flaktrak in that if it is not moving, it sets up and gains a rate of fire buff, but when moving it retains its current performance.

I guess you could go the t-34/85 route too and make a doctrinal upgraded Ostwind.


13 Nov 2018, 21:01 PM
#94
avatar of Widerstreit

Posts: 1392

jump backJump back to quoted post13 Nov 2018, 20:56 PMKatitof

Source:

Dude, trust me.


Ostwind:
http://www.lexikon-der-wehrmacht.de/Waffen/flakpanzer.htm

FlaK-43 (normaly 160 round/min):
http://www.lexikon-der-wehrmacht.de/Waffen/flugabwehrwaffen-R.htm#3,7-cm Flak 43

speaking about the theoretically fire-rate (max. 250 round/min, normaly 150 round/min):
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/3,7-cm-FlaK_43

The differences between the shell-explosive was minimal. But FlaK43 hat way higher fire-rate. ^^


At least I would also have no problems by making it OKW exclusive.
13 Nov 2018, 21:07 PM
#95
avatar of murky depths

Posts: 607

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.

13 Nov 2018, 21:09 PM
#96
avatar of Widerstreit

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.



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...
13 Nov 2018, 21:11 PM
#97
avatar of murky depths

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.


I never said that, personally I think it's a janky emplacement that can sucker-punch in some settings and be a total waste of resources in others. Though apparently it has a bit of an identity issue regarding anti-air. My view is that brits as a whole are a whack faction and are not designed all that well. I don't find bofors an issue when I play as OKW, so I can't really comment on what should be done with it, but I never play as brits so I don't really have a defensive argument for it either. I would defer to the experience of others here.

It is like the Vickers, this MG is also not balanced. Way too much DPS and on the other hand useless...


IMO all HMGs should be suppression platforms, so I think we agree here.
13 Nov 2018, 21:23 PM
#98
avatar of Widerstreit

Posts: 1392


...


Yep, that is what I want. It is off-topic now, but I have to make an overview.

Ostheer don't really needs the Ostwind, it has the 222 and most tanks have an AA-MG. Even it isn't used that much. I can live by make it an exclusive, it its really easy to do that with the Ostwind.


So DPS (overview by use currenct stats and Twist them around, stats are too much for a quick Diskussion)


-Bofors: Shell-DPS as OKW-Base, fire-rate of currenct Ostwind. (4 shots, reload | some supression)
[So it becomes more useful, because of supression, but less real DPS because of lower fire-rate, but higher area-effect.]

-OKW Base: Stays like it is (8shots, relaod | some supression)
[…]

-Ostwind (now OKW exclusive) same as OKW Base.
[Because OKW can't hull down, and the commander also Needs some love, that would be ok in my mind.]




Vickers, get Stats of Maxim, but its Vet stays like it is. -> less DPS, more supression, with Vet really good because of range-buff, DPS-buff.

13 Nov 2018, 21:25 PM
#99
avatar of Katitof

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...

AA gun that can't shoot down planes, bofors up.

And yes, it is balanced.
Its just going to be standing there.

You will be hit by it exclusively if you specifically choose to once you know where it is.

Also fun fact:
Vickers has lower DPS then HMG42.
Why does it kill so much?
Because its suppression is so shit, suppressed squads take lower damage from small arms for some time.

So your perception of it being too strong, ironically, comes out of it being too weak in the one single role HMG should be doing.
13 Nov 2018, 21:26 PM
#100
avatar of murky depths

Posts: 607

I don't think I'd wish the stats of the maxim on the worst of my enemies.
PAGES (11)down
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

300 users are online: 300 guests
2 posts in the last 24h
4 posts in the last week
35 posts in the last month
Registered members: 49210
Welcome our newest member, Shunnarah
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM