Login

russian armor

Feelings after the Decemberpatch

PAGES (10)down
31 Dec 2018, 13:31 PM
#61
avatar of Lago

Posts: 3260

jump backJump back to quoted post31 Dec 2018, 13:06 PMVipper
Soviets already have IS-2/ISU-152/KV-2 as super heavies last thing they need is another Super heavy.

The idea of continuously buffing units to make them more attractive is counter productive, there is allot of room for these unit if they timing and price is right without being buffed.


Who said anything about buffing?
31 Dec 2018, 13:33 PM
#62
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post31 Dec 2018, 13:31 PMLago


Who said anything about buffing?

You, allowing both main gun and flamer is a buff or modeling after crocodile.
31 Dec 2018, 13:34 PM
#63
avatar of Lago

Posts: 3260

jump backJump back to quoted post31 Dec 2018, 13:33 PMVipper
You, allowing both main gun and flamer is a buff.


Fair. I tend to think of that more as an irritating micro tax, but you're right, it would.
31 Dec 2018, 13:39 PM
#64
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post31 Dec 2018, 13:34 PMLago


Fair. I tend to think of that more as an irritating micro tax, but you're right, it would.

It is a nice change to be able debate in civilized manner.

Modeling the Kv-8 after hezter as earlier cheaper tank would be better option imo.

Happy new year.
31 Dec 2018, 13:47 PM
#65
avatar of Lago

Posts: 3260

I really don't like inconsistencies in the visual language of the game. I was overjoyed when they gave the Churchill Crocodile's main gun the same damage as a normal Churchill, and I'd fastly prefer to keep the KV-8's durability the same as the KV-1. Having two identical tanks have such wildly different durabilities was a bit jarring.

Therefore, if you were trying to make the KV-8 a standard anti-infantry-only flame tank, I'd probably do it by removing its anti-armour gun entirely rather than adjusting its durability. That'd keep it as a highly durable anti-infantry breakthrough unit, but would make even a Puma a hard counter to it.

I'm not sure where that'd leave its cost, although my gut says around 125ish FU.
31 Dec 2018, 14:30 PM
#66
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post31 Dec 2018, 13:47 PMLago
I really don't like inconsistencies in the visual language of the game. I was overjoyed when they gave the Churchill Crocodile's main gun the same damage as a normal Churchill, and I'd fastly prefer to keep the KV-8's durability the same as the KV-1. Having two identical tanks have such wildly different durabilities was a bit jarring.
...

Well achieving both consistency and balance is very difficult. Ostwind and PzIV have the same chassis for instance...Balance should come first consistency second.

jump backJump back to quoted post31 Dec 2018, 13:47 PMLago

Therefore, if you were trying to make the KV-8 a standard anti-infantry-only flame tank, I'd probably do it by removing its anti-armour gun entirely rather than adjusting its durability. That'd keep it as a highly durable anti-infantry breakthrough unit, but would make even a Puma a hard counter to it.

I'm not sure where that'd leave its cost, although my gut says around 125ish FU.

I agree, I would rather have be durable and less lethal and the main gun could remain to fend of light vehicles (being harassed by 222 would feel wrong).

Puma is a curios case since it has trouble with some AI tank like KV-8/Centaur, maybe reduce the rear armor a bit so it can penetrate when it flanks it.

The durability could actually move to veterancy so the unit has less shock value if cheaper but scales better so that it can remain relevant. The unit should lose unsupported to a PzIV.

As for price one could even go lower to even 100-110 it the DOT is removed.

It should also not be available in commanders with super heavies, that would help balancing it allot.
31 Dec 2018, 14:33 PM
#67
avatar of Lago

Posts: 3260

Well achieving both consistency and balance is very difficult. Ostwind and PzIV have the same chassis for instance...Balance should come first consistency second.


They look completely different. The KV-1 and KV-8 are practically the same model.
31 Dec 2018, 15:21 PM
#68
avatar of Selvy289

Posts: 366

jump backJump back to quoted post31 Dec 2018, 13:10 PMVipper

Sturm Tiger could easily be turned into a cheaper less lethal anti emplacement role vehicle and then the KT/ST could be removed.

Competing with a KT with HE munition will always be problematic.


Forgetting the new panzer commander as well. With the 10% accuracy bonus, sight bonus and buffed artillery, the kt is just a better choice.
31 Dec 2018, 15:41 PM
#69
avatar of blvckdream

Posts: 2458 | Subs: 1



Forgetting the new panzer commander as well. With the 10% accuracy bonus, sight bonus and buffed artillery, the kt is just a better choice.



I wonder where people get this idea from that the KT with panzer commander is a good unit. I tested it and it doesn´t help in any significant way. The weaknesses of the KT are scatter, high penetration and range TDs and bad turret rotation. Giving it slightly more sight doesn´t fix that. And the 10% accuracy don´t matter in infantry combat because in order to kill infantry, scatter and AOE are what matters. The arty is decent to deny an area (for example to cap a VP while KT sits behind it) but that´s not enough to make the KT viabe.
31 Dec 2018, 16:07 PM
#70
avatar of LoopDloop

Posts: 3053



Let's not compare 1 stat and draw conclusions from there, shall we?

Sturmioneers
- 300MP
- DPM is 64/28,8/3,8 at ranges 3/15/28
- lose 25% of their DPM if one model drops on approach
- No default weapon upgrade
- 0,87 target size
- goes up against high close range DPM Riflemen
- have bad combat veterancy at very high requirements

Assault Engineers
- 280MP
- DPM is 67/7/0,8 at ranges 10/18/30
- lose 20% of their DPM if one model drops on approach
- default flamethrower upgrade
- 0,9 target size
- goes up against low close range DPM Volksgrenadiers
- have quite good combat veterancy at reasonable requirements



TLDR Assault Engineers are better than Sturmpioneers while being cheaper. Their early game performance should be toned down a bit. They are performing at about 110-120% efficiency for their cost/role. Giving them 1,0 target size at vet0 (0,9 at vet1) and locking flamethrower behind tech should put them closer to 100% efficiency for vanilla performance.

I agree that assault engineers are pretty handily better than sturms, but if we were to remove the .91 target size and move it to vet1 IMO reinforce cost should go down (maybe 28-29) too. That way they're less overly combat efficient but they also bleed a bit less too.




I wonder where people get this idea from that the KT with panzer commander is a good unit. I tested it and it doesn´t help in any significant way. The weaknesses of the KT are scatter, high penetration and range TDs and bad turret rotation. Giving it slightly more sight doesn´t fix that. And the 10% accuracy don´t matter in infantry combat because in order to kill infantry, scatter and AOE are what matters. The arty is decent to deny an area (for example to cap a VP while KT sits behind it) but that´s not enough to make the KT viabe.

More sight is always nice, even if it's not a ton, but I mostly upgrade it with the commander for the arty. I find that a lot of times I won't even be in range for the pintle 42 on it to fire on infantry anyway, and certainly less frequently than the p4 or panther with it, so it seems like the best tank to upgrade the commander on. I don't think it really radically changes the kt's capabilities at all, but it's definitely a nice upgrade.
31 Dec 2018, 16:35 PM
#71
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1


...Also very true, although I think that's mainly because Assault Grenadiers simply haven't been looked at for a very long time and have become very underpowered with all the other units around them being buffed.

Imo assault grenadiers are about a proper level for a CP 0 unit for the time frame (maybe a bit more durable).

On the other hand they scale terribly and they should either get a weapon upgrade like 3 ST44 or have very good vet bonuses including lower reinforcement cost or some sort of late AT grenade lock behind BP 2 so that they can remain relevant.
31 Dec 2018, 16:45 PM
#72
avatar of LoopDloop

Posts: 3053

jump backJump back to quoted post31 Dec 2018, 16:35 PMVipper

Imo assault grenadiers are about a proper level for a CP 0 unit for the time frame (maybe a bit more durable).

On the other hand they scale terribly and they should either get a weapon upgrade like 3 ST44 or have very good vet bonuses including lower reinforcement cost or some sort of late AT grenade lock behind BP 2 so that they can remain relevant.

I agree that assgrens need better scaling, but remember that as a 0cp unit (talking early game) they have a lot more combat potential than just their mp40s because of grenade assaults and sprint. Assault engineers just have to rely on solely dps and the flamer (which would be locked behind officer probably in the future) so they should be a bit stronger in dps. Assault engineers scale way better in live though, and again I definitely agree that assgrens could use like an stg upgrade or something. Smoke grenades at like vet2 would be nice too if they don't already have them (I never use them cuz they suck so I don't know whether they do or not lol).
31 Dec 2018, 16:51 PM
#73
avatar of Jae For Jett
Senior Strategist Badge

Posts: 1002 | Subs: 2


I agree that assault engineers are pretty handily better than sturms, but if we were to remove the .91 target size and move it to vet1 IMO reinforce cost should go down (maybe 28-29) too. That way they're less overly combat efficient but they also bleed a bit less too.

Thats exactly what I was thinking too. Without the .9 RA, theyre not really worth 30 MP per model. Theyre currently better than sturms overall as a squad, but slightly worse than them model per model. If they become even worse than sturms model per model, their reinforce should probably reflect that.
31 Dec 2018, 16:52 PM
#74
avatar of blvckdream

Posts: 2458 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post31 Dec 2018, 16:35 PMVipper

Imo assault grenadiers are about a proper level for a CP 0 unit for the time frame (maybe a bit more durable).

On the other hand they scale terribly and they should either get a weapon upgrade like 3 ST44 or have very good vet bonuses including lower reinforcement cost or some sort of late AT grenade lock behind BP 2 so that they can remain relevant.


More Axis Squads with snares? Hell no.

A specialist infantry unit shouldn´t have a snare, just like it´s already implemented in the game. It´s not a good idea whatsoever.

Assault Grenadiers are not good enough right now but just giving them a buff to RA and/or cost would be a simple fix. It would also make sense to add them to more doctrines so they could be used alongside better units/abilities. I haven´t tested the new Stug E but I doubt it´s gonna be good enough to make people use Mechanized Assault.
31 Dec 2018, 16:59 PM
#75
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1


I agree that assgrens need better scaling, but remember that as a 0cp unit (talking early game) they have a lot more combat potential than just their mp40s because of grenade assaults and sprint. Assault engineers just have to rely on solely dps and the flamer (which would be locked behind officer probably in the future) so they should be a bit stronger in dps. Assault engineers scale way better in live though, and again I definitely agree that assgrens could use like an stg upgrade or something. Smoke grenades at like vet2 would be nice too if they don't already have them (I never use them cuz they suck so I don't know whether they do or not lol).

No they do not assault grenades is locked behind PB 1 and comes late.

The unit should either get some weapon upgrades or buffed and moved to higher CP.

Assault engineer are problematic because of their durability DPS, how flamers work,of mines,of their utility and because of their synergy with USF light vehicles.

5 men with flamers are bad to begin with even worse when available this early.

31 Dec 2018, 17:11 PM
#76
avatar of Sander93

Posts: 3166 | Subs: 6

I agree that assault engineers are pretty handily better than sturms, but if we were to remove the .91 target size and move it to vet1 IMO reinforce cost should go down (maybe 28-29) too. That way they're less overly combat efficient but they also bleed a bit less too.

Thats exactly what I was thinking too. Without the .9 RA, theyre not really worth 30 MP per model. Theyre currently better than sturms overall as a squad, but slightly worse than them model per model. If they become even worse than sturms model per model, their reinforce should probably reflect that.


Yeah fair enough.
31 Dec 2018, 17:24 PM
#77
avatar of distrofio

Posts: 2358

I voted for sturmtiger as UP, but it wasnt easy at all. I find it has more utility now, because of the suppression effect and bigger AOE, also it can reload and move and the new elite armor repair helps a lot to bring it up to frontlines fast enough. I had a few SU-85 1 hit kills and those were partly because SU distracted.
I would suggest a little range buff or a frontal armor buff.
Its meant to be an assault gun, frontal armor would be nice. In the current meta a single allied TD focusing frontaly on sturmtiger can make it retreat, also its still slow and a easy target.

I liked the idea mentioned before of swapping ST with KT.

I dont pretend Sturmtiger to be OP, but its hard to use it effectively if you summarise its weakness and overall enemys strenghts.

Edit:
I also think JLI are on the OP side, mainly of their insertion ability. They become quite useful in the right moment because of that. If they were to be reworked, i would remove their insertion. Just that.

31 Dec 2018, 17:52 PM
#78
avatar of LoopDloop

Posts: 3053

I voted for sturmtiger as UP, but it wasnt easy at all. I find it has more utility now, because of the suppression effect and bigger AOE, also it can reload and move and the new elite armor repair helps a lot to bring it up to frontlines fast enough. I had a few SU-85 1 hit kills and those were partly because SU distracted.
I would suggest a little range buff or a frontal armor buff.
Its meant to be an assault gun, frontal armor would be nice. In the current meta a single allied TD focusing frontaly on sturmtiger can make it retreat, also its still slow and a easy target.

I liked the idea mentioned before of swapping ST with KT.

I dont pretend Sturmtiger to be OP, but its hard to use it effectively if you summarise its weakness and overall enemys strenghts.

Edit:
I also think JLI are on the OP side, mainly of their insertion ability. They become quite useful in the right moment because of that. If they were to be reworked, i would remove their insertion. Just that.


Meh the thing about the sturmtiger is that all it has to do is take its one shot and retreat. That's usually a short enough time that it can handle one TD with their rather low dps and stil take its shot and run away. Of course if you run into his entire army and all his at at the same time you'll have to retreat without taking a shot most likely but same goes for every other tank in the game.
31 Dec 2018, 17:55 PM
#79
avatar of Sander93

Posts: 3166 | Subs: 6

I think Sturmtiger is in a pretty good spot, I would like 2-3 more quality of life changes:
  • Higher arc for rocket (with faster velocity to compensate) to avoid elevation and objects issues;
  • Possibly lower random scatter on the rocket so the player can actually reliably aim around objects (would probably also help with elevation issues) if first option is impossible or ineffective;
  • Make vet1 grenade ability able to be fired on the move like Sherman smoke launchers.
  • Possibly increase damage versus (braced) emplacements so it can become a natural counter to Sim City besides the leFH 18.



I enjoy using the Sturmtiger, it's great versus blobs and good to occasionally wipe a squad / weapon team or damage a tank. It mere presence will usually make all enemy infantry retreat which is nice. It's much more usable with the patch's QoL improvements, but the rocket collision and elevation issues still make it awkward to use. The new grenade range is nice but having to stop to fire it still makes it very risky to use as you're usually firing it in self defence and stopping while being chased can prove to be fatal.
31 Dec 2018, 18:13 PM
#80
avatar of distrofio

Posts: 2358


Meh the thing about the sturmtiger is that all it has to do is take its one shot and retreat. That's usually a short enough time that it can handle one TD with their rather low dps and stil take its shot and run away. Of course if you run into his entire army and all his at at the same time you'll have to retreat without taking a shot most likely but same goes for every other tank in the game.


wow you just turned my argument in a idiotic speech... was that neccessary?

But no, i dont agree with you in this. ST is a doctrinal, quite expensive, assault gun, a single shot, rather slow to shoot, not to mention way too obvious where its aimed to. We all know that already.
If you stack up a single TD and a snare, you need to call 911 to rescue it from certain death. Yet a single TD poses 75% of the threat already, you cant kill it with ST and they will bring it down if you dont fall back immediatly. I use it everytime with vision blockers and its quite micro intensive to use it, just because it cant use its frontal armor as a proper shield.

My point is, as an assault gun it does its job quite underwhelmingly.

edit: Considering its cost vs a Pz4 or Panther it should give some benefit rather than being a "blob killer"
PAGES (10)down
0 user is browsing this thread:

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

1012 users are online: 1012 guests
1 post in the last 24h
9 posts in the last week
27 posts in the last month
Registered members: 50006
Welcome our newest member, Villaloboski
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM