Profile of Mr.Smith

The Pak43 and Opel Blitz both use SCAR Function calls to spawn their accessory buildings. Considering I don't know anything about Lua or SCAR in particular, and this whole Idea was on a whim, I'm going to shelve it for now.

Check the forward retreat ability on the major. The ability uses a spawn-entity call to create the antennas and the forward retreat point. I am not sure whether you can control rotation, though.

You should be able to bundle the spawn entity thing under the constructed_actions of your trench.

If i am not mistaken new maxim got damage nerf per burst balance team says its ok because burst duration is doubled so DPS is the same


It is not the same

Before Maxim dealt some ammount of damage for short burst NOW same damage is dealt for double time.


DPS - Damage Per Second for those who doesnt know it.

In theory, the DPS is the same.

In practice, every time you whack a model the Maxim has to aim again. Since Maxim uses soviet technology aiming systems, it takes up to 0.125 - 1 seconds to acquire a new target, thus depriving you of DPS.

The maxim also takes an additional second to start firing at the squad when you see it (or when you change targets to a new squad). Thus you can spend up to 2 seconds when a squad enters your field of view, without dealing any damage or suppression.

We've already narrowed down the bane of all Maxim issues (DPS/Suppression) to the uncharacteristically long and unreliable aim time. Now it's up to Relic to let us patch it.

Thanks for the heads up though!

I wonder what was the justification to hide the t34-85 and the Easy-8 behind tech, but then dont do the same for other medium tank call-ins like the lend-lease Sherman? I mean doesn't it create the same problems like T34 call-ins previously?

Command Panther meta

and before you ask, the reason for Command Panther is Armour company/Pershing

Then, the reason for USF call-in meta is USF late-game & Lightning war

To be able to take FRPs out, you need to start thinking of field reinforcement options for those factions. EFA are not exactly helpless on this, as they have their non-doc halftracks. OST can also build command bunkers.

Halftrack reinforcing does require micro, but it pays dividents for it, as you can reinforce also on enemy sectors.

For USF we can probably add a speed governors upgrade (that requires tech, though) to the ambulance to make it move faster, and maybe even allow reinforcing to work outside friendly territory.

For UKF, we can always make their M5 available non-doc, and tie Vickers/PIAT dropping to the doctrine.

The big question is what happens for OKW. While I Know that T1 & T4 is cancer to take out, the faction itself lacks the tools. We can't add 251, because OKW lacks the skins for it. IRHT should probably not be available non-doc.
- Should we allow walking stuka to reinforce on-the-field?
- Should we lift the restriction on MedHQ to allow them to be built elswhere too? (but made both weaker and cheaper)?

If OKW is to be the aggressive faction they need some way to maintain field presence. FRP are a low-micro brute-force of achieving this. Being able to only reinforce near fixed locations is an enormous disadvantage.

I know that OKW behaves more than turtle-incarnate faction rather than an aggressive faction. However, this can change if they no longer trivially-win the lategame.

As long as we don't have a confirmation for Relic as to what the next patch should address, I would never even attempt to implement team-game oriented stuff. Otherwise, this will amount in a monumental waste of time and effort from our part.

Secondly, the reason I would never even attempt creating an unauthorized teamgame-oriented mod is that time and time again, experience has shown us that the fast majority of people will never progress past reading the patchnotes.

Building a decent mod requires at least 2 weeks of work. This is also partly because we have to reimplement a vast number of stuff that should have been in-scope for WBP already. For instance, if I were to create a serious mod, I would have to include a fix for call-ins. This would have to be the 8th time I have to reimplement fixes for call-ins. This is depressing.

To get a 2v2 in for a balance mod, you need 4 equally-skilled people to get together at the same time, agree on the map, factions, etc. Then, there's so many combinations of tactics you can use vs your opponents before it becomes boring and you need to find new opponents.

On the other hand, writing patchnotes for a mod idea only requires a few hours. Most people will gloss over bigger or smaller things. However, only a depressingly-small amount of players will invest the time to test the mod at the expense of:
- Not ranking up in the live version (which is still relatively new)
- Playing with their friends in the live version vs unknown opponents

Thus, from our part, I think it's better we focussed on getting the balance for one matchup right (e.g., OST vs Soviets); i.e., do the best we can about those two factions, without worrying too much about their interactions with USF/OKW/Brits. Then, once we get enough feedback and determine what "EFA level" should look like, we can start tuning the other 3 faction to the mythical "EFA level".

Even between those two factions there's so much cheese (e.g., demos) and so much untapped potential (e.g., commanders, units, etc).

In short:
- For 1v1-related stuff, it's always a good idea to make a mod (because it's feasible to get people to play it)
- Ideally I would keep the scope narrow (few factions) but deep (rework units/abilities/commanders as necessary), and grow to add new factions
- For teamgame-oriented stuff, I wouldn't invest the effort to go beyond a discussion of good ideas that would improve teamgames for a future patch