Ask Findeed how penals get easly closer to germans position. Especially for westheer one (volks with their StG's). Anyway, could you explain why double StG's taking all weapon slots? Is this a bug or part of balance? What about getting flamethrower and sweepers and vickers at the same time by royal engineers? And still fauts hitting ground or even infantry models fyi (and killing them)
All of what you've mentioned is out of scope. The stgs, the sweepers, sapper upgrades.
|
Buddy, I really know the power of cons but penals seem to be better in every case right now - they have non doctrinal submachine guns and flamer. For cons I've to choose one of not really good doctrines. So what's the point of making cons when penals will do their job two times better and without locking in doctrine?
Have a go with both, and tell us your opinion. Penals now cost 8 popcap compared to 6 popcap for conscripts. Also good luck closing in with Penal RA and no oorah.
|
The OKW Luchs and the Ost flamer half-track are the most game winner in 2vs2 (apart from the marvelous walking Stuka that is very powerful all the time).
Sov-T1 need at least a sticky bomb equivalent to fight or Sov build diversity will suffer like it is now. No dummy snatchels, plz add stickies plz.
Apart above, It's feel like a good patch, so get it out fast.
Thanks !
The Penal demo charge, is, actually the same as the sticky AT satchel people have been seeing throughout WBP.
|
|
Guys, regarding T1 anti-vehicle counters, please be aware that Penal satchels now act as a snare. It's not the best snare in the game, but it will probably be good enough to hold vehicles at bay.
|
|
Depends on how much flavour you want for each doctrine.
Solution 1:
- Glider stays the sameish price, glider can build commandos
This is straightforward. In this case, Commando Glider becomes poor man's logistic glider
Solution 2:
- Glider becomes very cheap (~420-ish)
- Potentially reduce cooldown (currently it's at 4 minutes long, which is excessive)
- Glider can reinforce friendly troops even when cut-off
Solution 2 addresses the longstanding problem of Brits not being able to reinforce on the field, and allows this doctrine offer something unique. Since commando doctrine is an aggressive infantry-support oriented the doctrine, I think it fits the theme. And it's also more unique/aggressive oriented than the vanguard glider.
Let's face it, if you had Solution 1, you would never use the glider offensively, which is what the doctrine should be about.
Now you can use cheap-ish gliders to reinforce your on-field commandos, troops, etc
|
The reverted light vehicle changes may come back in a later update or a later version of WBP? I liked them 
Later version of WBP, I'd say is extremely unlikely. The Scope stepped in, and demanded a sacrifice in volume of changes to keep patch to a minimum.
The only way we will be seeing them back is if the community steps up and request them (e.g., for a future minor update).
|
Wait. You literaly only nerfed already weak penals in 1v5. I thought they were getting some buffs to AI department with removal of AT. Or Am I missing something ?
They get access to the AT satchel, vanilla. i.e., the AT satchel is no longer locked behind the PTRS upgrade |
should not be 100% bigger?
(25% applied on x,y and -x,-y coordinates means area in X 1,5 bigger and in Y 1,5 bigger. Impact Zone not be square (which would be 125% bigger), but some ellipse)
The impact zone is not an ellipse, though. It's more like a trapezoid with the parallel sides curved.
In either case though (1.25 * x + 1.25 * |-x|) * (1.25 * y + 1.25 * |-y|) = 1.25 * 1.25 (2*x * 2*y).
(The original area before the multiplied set in was already (2*y * 2*y).
|
I know that Cruzz wrote that, but I couldn't find a single data point backing that claim up in the game's files regarding mortars. I might still be wrong of course, but unless I see evidence to back Cruzz's word up (evidence I already looked for, so it's not like I am doubting Cruzz in general) this is the information available through the game files.
The only related information in the game files is based on accuracy, which does indeed suffer a penalty from firing into the fog of war. But mortars don't give a damn about accuracy, because their shot dispersion is purely based on scatter.
Look under scatter. There's fog-of-war multipliers for both angle_scatter and vertical scatter.
If you don't trust people (you shouldn't), and you don't trust the editor (yeah, it's funky sometimes), you can also think and run your own experiments to reproduce that information.
You can test this by going into cheatmode and barraging near a visible location (a unit has to be nearby to provide vision), and also barraging in the fog of war.
If that still doesn't convince you, make a mod where you change both attributes to 0, thus making your stuff be pinpoint-accurate in the fog-of-war.
PS: I think that the scatter penalties are a quadratic function. 25% penalty each direction in the cone will make the area 50% bigger.
|
|
We've changed the collision properties for the Stug-E shell so that people can't fire through hedges with it. That way, people won't be able to base-rape their opponents in langreskaya/crossroads/etc. That is to say, Stug-E shell now has the same collision properties as the brummbar. This might have an effect on the artillery calculation (i.e., if there's no feasible path, the Stug-E won't fire).
In contrast, I think that all other medium tanks have different collision properties.
Next time this happens, can you take a screenshot for me, showing the Stug-E's position, and the obstacles in front off it?
|
Romeo
Mr Smith
Luciano
Mr Smith
Relic Entertainment
