OKW September patch discussion

I feel like these rak changes miss their biggest pain points, which are inconsistent ability to hit light vehicles (greatly impacts OKW/SOV and OKW/Brit match ups early game) and inability to penetrate allied heavy armor late game.

Just give Poor rak the UKF vet 1 ability instead Retreat is fair IMO.
270 MP T0 ATgun should have many luxery options.

Nice that retreat is back.
Now give it sniper camo and revert back to 4 man.
Wonder is it hard to use sniper camo on the unit?

With Rak having 55 range AND 5 man AND retreat, I don't think it should still cost only 270mp. Its easily worth 290-300mp with these changes.

Make rak a USF at gun clone with Soviet camo

Make rak same again with Sniper camo

Remove all SturmOfficer ability buff to enemy PLZ

I feel like these rak changes miss their biggest pain points, which are inconsistent ability to hit light vehicles (greatly impacts OKW/SOV and OKW/Brit match ups early game) and inability to penetrate allied heavy armor late game.

Those are largely myths. Yes, the Raketen is slightly worse, but the difference is so small it's borderline negligible.

which are inconsistent ability to hit light vehicles

Raketen accuracy is now 0.06/0.05/0.04 at ranges 0/25/55.

Pak 40 accuracy is 0.06/0.05/0.04 at ranges 0/30/60.


At 50 range, the chance to hit a T-70 is roughly:
~71% for the Raketen;
~74% for the Pak 40.

With the only real difference being, I think, that when the Pak 40 misses then its shell will usually scatter near the targeted vehicle, while when the Raketen misses its projectile will usually collide with the ground or with an object. So the Pak 40 has a slightly higher chance to still score a scatter hit with a miss, but with 7.5 scatter angle and 10 distance max it's not very likely.

and inability to penetrate allied heavy armor late game.

Raketen penetration is 200/190/180, and 250/238/225 with vet (and 313/296/281 for the vet 5 first shot out of ambush).

Pak 40 penetration is 210/200/190, and 273/260/247 with vet.


At (their respective) max range, the chance to penetrate an IS-2 is:
~48% and ~60% (with vet) for the Raketen;
~51% and ~66% (with vet) for the Pak 40.

Furthermore, the Raketen has lower veterancy 1-3 requirements (1080/2160/4320) than the Pak 40 (1280/2560/5120) so late game rebuilds or recrews can potentially reach their veterancy penetration bonus a lot sooner than the Pak 40.

With Rak having 55 range AND 5 man AND retreat, I don't think it should still cost only 270mp. Its easily worth 290-300mp with these changes.

No it shouldn't the raketenwerfer was under performing big time. If YOU can't handle it this is a L2P issue nothing more.

No it shouldn't the raketenwerfer was under performing big time. If YOU can't handle it this is a L2P issue nothing more.

It was both underperforming and over performing. Kinda like the maxim actually. In the role the unit is intended to fill it is underwhelming BUT it works well for cheese.

the maxim? the maxim doesnt do anything right... its neither an MG nor a DPS dealer... the ZSU m16 meatgrinder is in fact a superior anti blob tool... soo the "anti blob" role isnt really handed to the maxim either...

in contrast the rak is a very poor AT gun... but it is THE BEST TANK HUNTER INGAME... just 2 of them can completely shut down allied medium play in smaller games... and even creep up and kill stuff like katyushas unless you keep them in the base... even then its not an assurance that it wont be cheesed by a rakaten...

snipe

I have good news, bad news and cheese news.


Good news: cover seems to be working more often than not. At least showing the cover shield.

Bad news: while before i could reliable see results, now it's kinda random whether the cover shield appears or not. I couldn't pinpoint if it's whether due to type of maps (last time i tested on a real map, now i did on testrange), cover or terrain deformation.

Cheese news: the fact that you couldn't kill the AT gun is because you are aiming at either the middle or one of the models in specific. And the Rifle nade having a smaller lethal radius.

Even when the cover shield appear, i could 100% kill AT guns with Rifle grenades, by aiming at the model who fires (not the loader).

Cheese news: the fact that you couldn't kill the AT gun is because you are aiming at either the middle or one of the models in specific. And the Rifle nade having a smaller lethal radius.

Even when the cover shield appear, i could 100% kill AT guns with Rifle grenades, by aiming at the model who fires (not the loader).

ATGs do give green cover damage reduction against AOE weapons under certain circumstances. I think it has to do with the direction the grenade is fired from, as normally that influences whether or not damage reduction is applied or not (as green cover damage reduction is directional), combined with the wonky circumstances under which a gun shield seems to give cover or not.

#1 aiming directly for gunner model


#2 firing from the gun's left side results in a lethal hit


#3 firing from the gun's right side results in a non lethal hit


So in any case, my claim was that

gunshields […] do generally provide the -50% green cover damage reduction against explosions.

and that is proven true (though perhaps generally is a bit of an overstatement, as I haven't tested every single angle, but they at least sometimes provide green cover bonuses) based on these tests (-78hp health damage to the squad while hitting at least two models must mean the grenade did
-50% damage).


Furthermore, I said:

And the Raketen does neither of those things.

Which is proven by replicating the exact same tests with the Raketen, in which no matter the direction it was fired from, the grenade scored a lethal hit on both gunner models:





So back to my original point, regular anti-tank guns do seem to offer the crew at least some protection against various enemy weapons even though the results vary wildly, but the Raketen never seems to provide any protection under any circumstances. So personally, based on these test results, I think it's fair that the Raketen can have a 5th crewman - partly - to compensate for the lack of a gunshield.

we could fix this problem by copy pasting usf at gun tho

snip

Thanks for the numbers rundown, that's interesting.

From my experience, what that translates to in game is a lot different than what is shown on paper. I believe it's due to a few factors:

• The projectile difference you mentioned, which can turn a miss into a hit for a PAK40. This appears to be the major factor that makes the raketen seem incredibly inaccurate and inconsistent.

• No Tier 0 fausts like Ost to keep M3 scout cars from wiping your squads or for keeping Bren Carriers at bay, making any raketen misses in the early game absolutely devastating for the OKW player.

• Sturm shrek package costing 70 munitions for a single shrek AND locking out the mandatory mine sweeper. Also if you do opt for the shrek upgrade, it can hardly be used offensively vs light vehicles. Most of the time the sturms just stare at the target aiming until it gets slightly out of range again.

• Unreliable penetration of the JP4 vs allied heavies, limiting your AT options late game to Panthers (handily countered by TD), KT (TD food), or the complete gamble that is the JT.

It's probably not an option, but honestly I'd much rather have Tier 0 fausts than a Tier 0 raketen. The rak being at T0 really limits how good it is as the argument will always be that raks should be worse than any other AT gun as it doesn't require tech. For those that oppose fausts and rak being switched in timing due to faction design, Id remind them that Volks used to get shreks to make up for its short comings. That was changed because it was poor design, and so should this in my opinion.

they could make faust come after first truck call in like flame nade if u want to make the puppchen come later

snip

What i tested was doing FRONTAL grenade throwing while also keeping the AT gun aiming in the middle. Reducing the crew to 2 guys further helps with acknowledging if the units are actually benefiting from cover or not.

I'm suspicious whether both or only one of the models suddenly lose the cover or not ATM. Or even having the cover be working weirdly.


I'm not sure why are you testing the rak, because by design it doesn't have any cover or any hitbox relevant to block any shot.

Nice that retreat is back.
Now give it sniper camo and revert back to 4 man.
Wonder is it hard to use sniper camo on the unit?

Do you mean have it automatically camoflague in cover?

That's mechanically achieveable but apparently creates issues where the Raketen's scatter shots hit its own cover.

I personally advocate having the Raketen camo automatically when stationary and out of combat. It's much more user-friendly than a toggle.

I'd do the same for the ZiS and the M-42.

Is there any intent to touch the JT and ST now that they're being tied to tech?

ATGs do give green cover damage reduction against AOE weapons under certain circumstances. I think it has to do with the direction the grenade is fired from, as normally that influences whether or not damage reduction is applied or not (as green cover damage reduction is directional), combined with the wonky circumstances under which a gun shield seems to give cover or not.

snip

So back to my original point, regular anti-tank guns do seem to offer the crew at least some protection against various enemy weapons even though the results vary wildly, but the Raketen never seems to provide any protection under any circumstances. So personally, based on these test results, I think it's fair that the Raketen can have a 5th crewman - partly - to compensate for the lack of a gunshield.

Interesting stuff, thanks for the testing.