i don't think letting AT guns become more effective at taking out sandbags makes indirect fire any less desirable. you'd usually not be getting a mortar specifically to fight units entrenched in heavy cover anyway, but rather as general fire support against any sort of stationary target (e.g. weapon teams) from outside retaliation range.
Or you simply do not get a mortar...
weapon teams can also benefit from cover..
in addition, mortars and AT guns still have two fundamentally different roles: one destroys cover to make the units behind it more vulnerable, the other does little to nothing against the cover itself but damages the entrenched units directly. so if anything, this creates more synergy between indirect fire pieces and AT guns instead of rendering either of the two redundant.
The difference mechanics are of less importance if both get the job done.
i'd also be careful about making units in green cover more susceptible against indirect fire in general. the fact that you have to stay immobile and pretty clumped up to enjoy the benefits of cover is already a pretty big penalty in itself. hence, reducing the 0.5 dr too much could easily make indirect fire too powerful.
This is not a general change but for certain specific weapons. If for instance the scott was better vs unit in cover that would make the unit more desireable. |
Sure, but USF are the only faction who both have access to Tank traps, and lack Sandbags (both nondoctrinally). Making the build time for Traps longer and making them yellow cover is pretty much a direct USF nerf, rather than a true universal change.
This quite irrelevant. Each faction should have access to the tools they need.
The fact the USF build tank traps as "heavy cover" is silly. If they need heavy cover then simply replace tank traps with sandbags. One can then make tank traps actually work as tank traps instead of cover.
The ATG/Mortar changes you suggest aren't bad, though. I would go a little further to suggest that Mortars have their base damage reduced, and have little to no penalty at all for firing at heavy cover, which would make them a dedicated "anti-cover" unit type (while also preventing them from oneshotting squads with lucky strikes).
Mortar already do "reduced" damage and can not 1 shot entities, but you get idea. These units should be good vs cover without being oppressive vs units in the open. |
Surely USF would need to gain Sandbags as standard on REs if their Tank Traps were to become yellow rather than green cover?
If you ask me there should less sandbags available in game and not more but this hardly the issue of this thread.
The issue of this thread is improving cover and anti cover mechanism because imo having ATG and TD dislodging entrenched troops is bad design.
If you need sandbags they should get them. |
|
Cover and especially heavy cover increases the durability of unit significantly.
Combined with the ability of faction to create heavy cover become an issue.
An issue also seem to be the damage of indirect fire weapon where some people claim that do not do enough while other that are too power
As solution the MOD team increased the target size of sandbag.
The problem with that solution is that it allow ATG weapon to destroy them easily making indirect fire weapon even less desirable.
Facing tank? use ATG/TD
Facing entrenched infatry? use ATG/TD
For these reason I would suggest the following changes:
1) Sandbag target size change revert. Heavy cover should not be countered by AT weapons from long range.
2) Certain weapon get improve modifiers for firing on heavy cover those can include Scott/Leig/mortars
3) Other weapon like rocket artillery remain as they are or even become worse vs units in cover
4) Tank traps build time increased greatly, target size reduce, resistance to ballistic weapon and now provide yellow cover. (and replace Axis tank traps with dragon teeth)
The changes will help to diversify build including indirect fire weapons when facing heavily fortified opponents and make certain units worth building without making them oppressive.
|
Maybe could keep upgrade even HQ build cost，like lost T4，only need buy new HQ truck and free deploy.
I was talking more about the display of upgrades and bonus which can be a bit confusing to navigate.
For instance ostheer reinforcement bonus comes T4 and the user can not see unless he actually build the T4. If the icon was moved in T0 then it would be more player friendly.
In similar manner the Soviet one is available in T3 and free in T4 if the icon was move to T0 it might become easier to see and explain. Maybe there could be a separate tab in HQ that has all the upgrade (non related to the building itself)/bonus. |
|
Reinforcement time
Certain units like officer UKF officer, Ostheer officer and command squad reinforce too slow. |
|
Sniper HP back 80.
The changes was introduced to avoid being oneshot by mortars ad that is no longer the case.
Unlearn tech
Certain faction lose access to abilities when they lose a tech building. Prime example are UKF that if they the lose T2 they lose access to AT grenade/destroy cover, emplacements, UC upgrades, IS upgrades, Roc. Eng smoke grenades. Similar thing apply to OKW with T4 and possibly to other factions.
Weapon sharing profiles
Satchel and AT satchel (available Penal/pioneers, effecting heavy gammon bomb, AT Penal/Car R) share the same weapon. This create a number of issues. New weapon should be created so that an anti building weapon does not cause engine damage and that AT weapons does not cause so much AI damage among other things
Camo bonuses
Currently PG/MG/JLIC/Gren get first strike bonus while ST do not which is weird. Adjust DPS if needed but give ST first strike bonus also.
First strike bonuses are also weird since the provide different bonuses to units and imo the should be unified.
MG/Gren get certain bonus, PG/Partisan/AT partisan get other Commando get other, AT Paras get yet another. |
|
I suspect that being able to call smoke and the bomb OKW Trucks might become too much (followed by gammon bomb possibly?) |
|
Everything else aside AT rifles in transporters are way to good especially with vehicles that bad vs vehicles like Luch or vehicles with slow turrets.
And the passenger causality system needs improvements.
Passengers should always be suppressed and the number of casualties/health damage should be normalized. |
|
The grass is greener on the other side of the fence.
Why does Stuka dive bomb cost the same as Concentrated fire operation when it does less damage?
Why does Stuka dive bomb has single hit when Concentrated fire operation get multiple hits?
Why does Stuka dive bomb has is CP 12 when Concentrated fire operation is CP 10?
|
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
Heartless Jäger 
