Profile of general_gawain

thing is, that 'little' killing power the live B-4 has basically just got increased by a factor of 3 in the beta... at least in cases where you can't leave the killing zone fast enough, such as being shelled by a B-4 barrage upon retreating back to base. i can already feel this potentially becoming an issue in 1v1s and i don't even want to imagine the flood of tears about to drown this forum once multiple B-4s start raining death in 3v3 and higher on a regular basis.
now don't get me wrong, i like the fact that the B-4 might be more than just a meme-cannon in 1v1s if the current changes go live. personally i also couldn't care less about the havok the reworked B-4 may be causing in 4v4s since neither do i play nor enjoy watching games in that mode - but there are a lot of people who do and hence a rework of some sort might turn out necessary. added utility in exchange for raw killing power could be one
one way to approach this without upsetting the balance in solo and team games too much.

You are absolutely right about 3v3/4vs4. Can we just keep it useful and hardcap it a 1? I know there are situations where it will be decrewed and you could build a second one if you wait to crew it again. But spam would be hampered at least. You could further obstruct a decrew mechanic, if you put in a timer, so it can't be build about 60 to 90 sec after you lost your B4 (similar to Heavy Tank call-ins).

Calculate the change of the Puma hitting and penetrating a Centaur and do the same for AEC (or even T-70/Stuart) vs Ostwind.(Want to check how Luch does vs centaur?)

I did it for you for armor. Won't do it for accuracy vs target size because my argument was that its durability comes mainly from target size. So your argument about hitting is invalid, because I never claimed that. I would approve my own statement by taking target size into account. I only claimed that armour adds little to its survivability because there are only some situations were it armor matters at all. Speed/accleration and armor of Ostwind would be plainly better in combination with Centaur target size.

vs Centaur:
Puma between 100%pen (close) and 50% (far) at 50 range / 120dmg

vs Ostwind:
AEC between 100%pen (close) and 73%(far) at 40 range / 120dmg
Stuart between 68%pen (close) and 50% (far) at 40 range / 80dmg
T-70 between 45% (close) and 36% (far) at 40 range / 40dmg

I don't see a problem, all cosr between 70 and 75 fuel (including side tech). AEC performs better with the exception of range. Puma still performs better than Stuart which is an AT source too if you look at its main gun AOE stats and its abilities. T-70 shoots a second faster than the other three but its performance is still way worse, because its main role is AI. It doesn't make sense to compare with Luchs, which is even cheaper and comes out earlier than these four. T-70 is really bad vs Ostwind already and will get destroyed by Ostwind pretty quickly. This is no problem of course since T-70 has lower cost and timing.

Armor does help Centaur it that simple vs a number of weapons.

Armor does help Centaur it that simple vs a number of weapons which are rarely used vs Centaur or are meant to be AI with the exception of PZIV and maybe Puma at mid to long range.

-> corrected it for you. You don't have to give thanks to me :-)

Centaur has both superior target size 18 vs 22 but also superior armor 160/80 vs 110/55

In the game the armor isn't that much o a difference as some may think. Bazooka/PIAT penetrates Ostwind at all ranges, Shrek penetrates Centaur at all ranges. All nondoc ATGs penetrate both tanks at all ranges. All T3+T4 TDs penetrate both at all ranges. The difference gets visible in the matchup PZIV vs Centaur or T34/M4A3/Cromwell vs Ostwind. While T34 vs Ostwind bounces around 1/3 of its shots at long range and PZIV bounces pretty much the same vs Centaur, Cromwell and M4A3 penetrate Ostwind with a higher chance. Thats the real visible difference in the game. On the other side Centaur is more likely to attract a further shot from an ATG or a pursuing tank than Ostwind. Since the speed is 5.6 and 1.8 accleration (Centaur) vs 6.3 and 2.1 accleration (Ostwind).
So armor is only relevant in this one ingame situation. If PZIV would penetrate Centaur at all ranges it would only be relevant vs light tanks at all.

Problem is this is basically the 76MM Sherman and the problem has always been being able to differentiate the flavors of Sherman. If 76MM is the "able to swap to better AT generalist" then E8 should probably be a bit different.

As Etheral Dragon said:

- 76mm: 640hp, more spammable, 40 range with both shells
- E8: 720hp, more expensive, 45-50 range with AT shells, more accurate with AT shells

You could futher put them apart with Vet to define them: Flank Speed for 76mm and HVAP ability for E8 vs heavy tanks. AI shell could be the same.

This patch is going to be terrible for the OKW .the last few options to deal with mortar and artillery spam is now gone. this will make the okw completely noncompetitive in team games

Vipper showed the real stats. Atm in the monthly breakdown there is a disparity of 6,5% between winrate of OKW and highest allied faction in winrate. The difference to lowest allied fation in winrate is 11,4%. At games with Players above Top200 the disparity rises to 11,7% (best allied faction) to 13,4% (worst allied faction).

I personally think it should be okay if OKW perfomces somehow worse in teamgames than in live.
The only difficulty is to hit the right spots, you have to weaken mechanisms that are strong in teamgames without influencing 1vs1 stats which are a lot closer to beeing balanced.