Luchs changes according to its ideal role!
Posts: 783
Luchs is as well all know is a good light vehicle that can change the tide of early gameplay.
It plays a strong role of aggression, which is kind of the problem.
Luchs was ideally, an infantry support vehicle, meaning stayed behind infantry lines as a means of support. Never was it in the front as aggression.
It never took on the role as being pushy or aggressive. It was considered a recon/supportive unit but in the game it plays more an aggressive role.
Currently, it does not so much play a supportive/reconissance type of unit.
So, I was thinking, in order to counter the early Luchs effectivness (which forces Allies to effectively get AT gun, my idea is to in some way counter this), but also for the purpose of making it improved and more to how it actually was, here are the changes I believe would make it better but not overwhelming.
To make it scale well, also for later games.
The changes, Luchs as a more supportive unit, (removes most of its aggressive features for more a defensive and supportive means instead), my ideas:
Nerf its moving accuracy, make it really poor
The aim of this is to make it bad/terrible, in this way, it has to depend heavily on being stationary (buff stationary accuracy even more, make it its strength).
Similar to how Tommies rely on cover but Luchs heavily relies instead on being stationary), as it to how it actually was in reality. Just to make it realistic, balanced and interesting.
So, it plays more of a supportive role rather than aggressive.
I figure, it is also time to remove that cheesy Camo. It is an another annoying feature, hardly used, ineffective, serves no real purpose. Just a frustrating feature that also needs to be removed.
The 2 boosters applied when/while being stationary:
Trade the camo ability for passive stationary accuracy booster, which is applied after being stationary 2-3 seconds (booster applies, accuracy significantly increased, applied to main gun only).
Sight should be slightly increased, only if it is stationary, a boost in sight, just slightly, to fill in a bit as a recon unit/role at the same time.
I was thinking the surpression should come earlier as it is never used. For starters, I was thinking it should come either at vet 2 or 3. So it fills the role as support more uniquely.
Also, decrease the vet requirements a little, to make it scale also better.
The idea, is to trade early gameplay for later gameplay. So, it becomes viable late game which would make this unit uniquely interesting.
I wonder what you guys think about this?
Posts: 378
Posts: 731
But big rework also a great idea,now Luchs is not important for OKW,and no competitiveness with PUMA
Posts: 3053
Posts: 783
I Think maybe swap 251AA and Luchs ,move Luchs to T2,give 42 sight,vet bouns increase sight to 50~60
But big rework also a great idea,now Luchs is not important for OKW,and no competitiveness with PUMA
I am glad you like the idea. It is true that it has no competitiveness without the Puma.
The point is, it is only useful early game, it really impacts the Allies in some ways negatively, how Luchs push especially into the base if you manage to get it real early, which is uncool.
Even then, one wants to get Luchs at all any later early at all, because by then it is no longer useless. OKW late game does not really have good AI vehicles.
The reason why none uses it late game is due to the fact it has to get closer to do something.
My idea to make this unit, focus to shoot at range instead, dont have to get close at all.
To trade aggressive for more support.
To trade early game for later game.
To trade the current impact which influences Allies negatively to a more justified impact.
Also, which many people would agree on most, is to affect the EARLY GAME.
Since Luchs in undeniably useful at changing early game.
Also, instead of Allies forcing to get the AT gun, it might it in some way promote OKW to get their Rak to support better their roles, and to support these kind of particular units such as the Luchs and Flakhalftrack.
Without relying on Puma, heavily.
Posts: 731
I am glad you like the idea. It is true that it has no competitiveness without the Puma.
The point is, it is only useful early game, it really impacts the Allies in some ways negatively, how Luchs push especially into the base if you manage to get it real early, which is uncool.
Even then, one wants to get Luchs at all any later early at all, because by then it is no longer useless. OKW late game does not really have good AI vehicles.
The reason why none uses it late game is due to the fact it has to get closer to do something.
My idea to make this unit, focus to shoot at range instead, dont have to get close at all.
To trade aggressive for more support.
To trade early game for later game.
To trade the current impact which influences Allies negatively to a more justified impact.
Also, which many people would agree on most, is to affect the EARLY GAME.
Since Luchs in undeniably useful at changing early game.
Also, instead of Allies forcing to get the AT gun, it might it in some way promote OKW to get their Rak to support better their roles, and to support these kind of particular units such as the Luchs and Flakhalftrack.
Without relying on Puma, heavily.
I just think base on September patch mod,they “rework” Raketenwerfer,without camo and retreat make Raketenwerfer hard to against Allies light armor and reduce they survivability
I think move Luchs to T2 maybe will be good against light armor but doesn't like Puma can crash all Light armor,and doesn't like 251AA only can defence
Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8
There is already a vehicle that fits your critique: Flak Halftrack
Aaaaand
/thread
Posts: 783
I just think base on September patch mod,they “rework” Raketenwerfer,without camo and retreat make Raketenwerfer hard to against Allies light armor and reduce they survivability
I think move Luchs to T2 maybe will be good against light armor but doesn't like Puma can crash all Light armor,and doesn't like 251AA only can defence
I still think the Devs need to make the Raketenwerfer a better AT support unit.
What it needs is a decrease in "Delay" (since its nearly 3 times longer than others)
and
decrease its time to "Reload" from 4 seconds to somewhere like 3 seconds and anything less.
Increase price of Rak to 300 manpower. To make it a viable AT support weapon.
Then it will do a good enough job than now in supporting, regardless, either FlakHalftrack or Luchs.
Which would be a huge fix to their 2 current problems
- AT issues, since Rak which is currently a terrible support AT unit, cant support anything properly, terrible at supporting lights. Fixing it would remove the problems.
- Lights not being entirely vulnerable. If Rak is not terrible anymore
Mostly, we have to depend on the changes their making on Raketenwerfer mostly because it is the only key for OKW to use the Lights efficiently. Without Rak, there is simply no lights.
Posts: 284 | Subs: 1
Posts: 731
I still think the Devs need to make the Raketenwerfer a better AT support unit.
What it needs is a decrease in "Delay" (since its nearly 3 times longer than others)
and
decrease its time to "Reload" from 4 seconds to somewhere like 3 seconds and anything less.
Increase price of Rak to 300 manpower. To make it a viable AT support weapon.
Then it will do a good enough job than now in supporting, regardless, either FlakHalftrack or Luchs.
Which would be a huge fix to their 2 current problems
- AT issues, since Rak which is currently a terrible support AT unit, cant support anything properly, terrible at supporting lights. Fixing it would remove the problems.
- Lights not being entirely vulnerable. If Rak is not terrible anymore
Mostly, we have to depend on the changes their making on Raketenwerfer mostly because it is the only key for OKW to use the Lights efficiently. Without Rak, there is simply no lights.
Let's wait new update,I wish Balance Team can give us a good suprise
Posts: 783
Posts: 1527
Permanently BannedPosts: 563
Posts: 783
You can see from a mile away. He wants a flak HT without the setup time.
It is not about wanting something alike Flakhalftrack.
I have already stated how and why.
Luchs was also similar that in way, it never shot on the move, rather it remained stationary (for total precision, since moving was inadvisable) as a support AI infantry unit since it was purposely used as a reconnaissance unit, and even for infantry support.
Reconnaissance meant also surveying in a distance, since armour (was weak and often stayed out of sight but used infantry engagements) could never such as Luchs in this instance, survey closely.
Infantry ahead, Luchs behind. That is how it was.
It would make sense especially by design, change it into a more ideal AI supportive and recon role.
It does not by its current design fit the recon role at all. Camo function is pretty much undefined, broken and it does not definitely suit as a recon unit as described.
I would say, remove the Camo completely for just better sight instead.
Change Aggressive gameplay in favour for more distant support, in this way, make it also viable late game which it currently never is.
The style change of play, would also affect its cheesy effectiveness early gameplay and make it a more fun and less frustrating unit to play with.
For the sake of diversity and pure gameplay rather than raw cheesiness.
Posts: 3260
Its moving damage isn't great, and it goes through the roof when you hit stop.
Posts: 783
The Luchs already works this way.
Its moving damage isn't great, and it goes through the roof when you hit stop.
In some ways, but by its current sign, it promotes too much aggressiveness and being up close.
Since the damage output is not that good in medium or long range. Only short distance does it go through the roof. Thus, it is designed heavily in this game as an aggressive designed unit.
So, I does not really work as much as by its actual design.
I does not play much supportive or recon much, it is too much in favour of aggression.
Posts: 3260
In some ways, but by its current sign, it promotes too much aggressiveness and being up close.
Since the damage output is not that good in medium or long range. Only short distance does it go through the roof. Thus, it is designed heavily in this game as an aggressive designed unit.
So, I does not really work as much as by its actual design.
I does not play much supportive or recon much, it is too much in favour of aggression.
That is what it's for.
The static fire support turret is the Flak HT.
Posts: 783
That is what it's for.
The static fire support turret is the Flak HT.
Well, Flakhalftrack provides purely suppression and some form of damage output (the damage which is not good until you get vet 2).
It would be fine to have another unit of similar characteristics.
Luchs provides instead which I would imagine, better firesupport due to more consistent shots, thus better damage output.
That is something really FlakHT fails to provide.
So, it does not matter really if there is already something similiar.
The point is, it does not make sense to make a unit any different from its actual design because of a unit that already has something similiar.
Like having 2 Ronaldos in FIfa but making one of them play like Messi. '
Does not really make sense does it, to put it away from its actual playstyle.
Regardless whether there is 2 units are to be alike.
Posts: 810
Posts: 3423 | Subs: 1
So, it does not matter really if there is already something similiar.
Nah it matters a lot actually. There's no reason to change the luchs
Livestreams
10 | |||||
153 | |||||
13 |
Ladders Top 10
-
#Steam AliasWL%Streak
- 1.831222.789+37
- 2.615222.735-2
- 3.35057.860+15
- 4.1110614.644+11
- 5.276108.719+27
- 6.306114.729+2
- 7.918405.694+2
- 8.262137.657+3
- 9.722440.621+4
- 10.1041674.607-2
Replay highlight
- cblanco ★
- 보드카 중대
- VonManteuffel
- Heartless Jäger
Board Info
5 posts in the last week
33 posts in the last month
Welcome our newest member, torsoworld
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM