in the fist sentence you suggest "Remove shared veterancy since it not available to other Command vehicles". But If there is not a relationship between command vehicle and share vet then why it is used as a reasons to suggest remove share vet from one.
Valentine is command vehicle and command generally vehicles do not have shared veterancy.
Valentine is not micro light or transport that generally have shared veterancy, so there is no reason to have shared veterancy.
So, in your mind, if the valentine have something that other command vehicle dont have, it should lose it, but at the same time, when the valentine dont have what other command vehicle have, you dont care ?
I am not sure why you want to debate what is in my mind in feedback thread.
Valentine has "command" abilities like smoke barrage and victor artillery that other commander vehicles do not have so I am not sure what your point is.
Event with that speaking, im not that again the removing of share vet from the valentine, if it can have some better/more suitable perk of a command vehicle, but the reason you use and the way you express the proposal just feel off and making pp dislike. You can just call it a neft.
You have every right to like or not like my arguments. If you a not against removing removing shared veterancy I have little to add.
If in you opinion the unit needs a redesign, feel free to provide one and I will let you know of my opinion on it.
I have actually made suggestions on how to better make use of Valentine. |
they both have 18 target size.
And Valentine gets target size 16.2 with vet, second smallest if I remember correctly after kubel
And yet, being a "command" vehicle without any aura is another "inconstancy", both should be and can be solved together.
No because there in not relationship between the command vehicles and shared veterancy.
There even no real relationship between auras and "command" units.
If in your opinion Valentine needs an aura feel free to recommend one.
Or, one can simply leave the unit alone, as there arent any complain about it any more, while there are many other things to do.
I would rather fix all thing that wrong like shared veterancy, this patch focus on command units abilities and it should Valentine. |
The Valentine is a different unit within a different faction. Not everything needs to be exactly the same. If it was then we would be playing a Mirror Match with Faction skins painted over the units.
I have never said anything like that so this comment is irrelevant.
The T-70 is in a different faction, does a much better job of killing infantry, comes out earlier and has more of an impact on the game than a Valentine ever will.
Second the Valentine Vet is not even that good to be complaining about.
Vet 1 : +7 sight range.
Vet 2: +35% turret rotation speed.
+20% maximum speed.
+20% rotation speed.
+20% ac/de-celeration.
Vet 3: +25% additional healthpoints.
-10% received accuracy.
Again I am not complaining. I have point the inconsistency that Valentine has shared veterancy while the majority of unit do not.
Vet bonus are again irrelevant to shared veterancy but if in your opinion Valentine's vet bonuses are not "good" I have to point out that the stat as vet are as follows:
Target size: 16.2
Sight: 42
Speed: 8.4
Accel: 2.6
Rotate: 45.6
Armor: 120/80
Health: 600
which means that Valentine has one of the smallest target size in game, one of the higest top speed in game, one of the highest rotation in game (if not the highest) while more HP/armor than any other light tank.
Can even take "war speed" on top of that 12.15 Target size, 9.66 top speed, 3.38 accel.
Really makes no sense to complain about a unit having an "inconsistency" for gaining very non impactful vet. By that same logic the Command Tiger can destroy most vehicles and because it is considered a Command Vehicle then the Valentine and the Panzer IV Command Tank should be equally as strong because they have the word Command in it.
I have no idea why you bringing the Command Tiger in this debate but I have to point out to you that the CT does NOT have shared veterancy.
Now if you had made the argument that other command vehicles such as the Panzer IV command tank should have shared vet then that would be a fair argument worthy of its own thread and discussion and I would most likely agree with you but calling for nerfs on almost every single allied unit or ability simply for the sake of nerfs on the most nonsense things makes no sense whatsoever.
Micro light and transports get shared veterancy and Valentine is neither so it there no reason to have shared veterancy.
I do not call nerfs on "almost every single allied unit" and I suggest you stop reading Katitof's posts there are not good for your brain. |
The Valentine is fine as is. Out of all of the things to complain about you choose the Valentine? Really? It dies in like 2-3 hits and is so rare I haven't seen one since the last nerf they did on it.
I am not complaining about anything. I am pointing out an inconstancy, Valentine has no reason to have shared veterancy.
As for claim about being easy to kill, Valentine has more HP more armor and smaller target size than T-70. |
riflemen are dead vs gren in late game
the best range for you unit doesn't matter
"Riflemen
Performs moderately at all ranges; excels against other rifled units at short-mid
Vulnerable at long ranges
Versus Grenadiers
Slightly advantaged at long ranges
Advantaged at mid ranges
Advantaged at short ranges
Versus Sturmpioneers
Advantaged at long ranges
Disadvantaged at mid ranges
Disadvantaged at short ranges"
|
just for say
conscripts = 240 manpower
grenadier = 240 manpower
It's a base unit, that's mean you have a lot of this unit.Grenadier with LMG win vs conscripts with no LMG
So what i do if his infantery win vs my
My tank need to counter INF + TANK ???????
And his tanks need only to counter tank, and his infantery kill all my infantery
i have the feeling that soviets are weak is the game during, coz of that
"Infantry Combat Tuning
The intent of these changes is to better define the strengths and weaknesses of each core unit relative to one another. We wanted to better define how each core unit should engage their perspective targets. For example, in a Grenadier vs. Riflemen match up, the Grenadiers want to maintain range. This is now a valid tactic, where in the past it was not. An integral element to this iteration is the introduction of received accuracy in place of raw damage. This was used in instances where additional fire power was not necessary in maintaining the established unit relationships. For example, Grenadier long range fire power is high enough to establish the unit’s relative relationship with other units, allowing us to increase their durability instead. As a by-product of this shift, short and mid range units should have an easier time closing in on their target."
"Grenadiers
Intended to excel at long range
Highest long range damage output for its tier
Abilities load out geared towards long range combat
Vulnerable at short range to all other unit types
Versus Conscripts
Advantaged at long ranges
Even at mid ranges
Disadvantaged at short ranges"
|
I'm quoting you, because it is you who wants even more nerfs to a vehicle that is named "command" exclusively to not allow more then 1, we both are aware of it, while you, again insisting on the "command" part of the vehicle don't want to give it anything command vehicle related that all other command vehicles have.
If you want to nerf it like that, then lets give it 0.9 dmg reduction aura as well, because its the only "command" vehicle that doesn't have aura skills.
If you want to treat it like an actual command vehicle, you need to give it actual command abilities.
But again, despite pretending to ignorantly, you are not THAT stupid and as said already, we both know why its named like that, what function it serves and how its balanced, yet you want to nerf it even further, despite it falling out of meta already.
I have no idea why you are fixating with the command aspect of Valentine.
As I already have pointed out "command" vehicles and shared veterancy are unrelated issues.
Actually the majority of vehicles with shared veterancy are either micro light or transports. Valentine is neither and thus has no reason to have shared veterancy (regardless if it is a command vehicle or not). |
Whether there is camo out of cover or not is the most defining factor imo.
With ambush camo (cover only) you can't advance, unless the entire battlefield is covered with a constant, unbroken stream of craters, which may only be a thing towards late game.
With assault camo you can move troops from cover to cover undetected, so you can make flanking manuveours from quite early on.
I know there are differences in what bonuses each unit gets when they fire out of cover. As for detection radius I haven't noticed any difference between infanry units, but I guess it varies on the few vehicles that have camo.
Best way to check is either in game testing comparing the unit one to other or get the stat from the editor. |
Use 222/251 infantry detection or kubel generally.
If I ever need of advice from you I will ask until then pls do not give me advice.
You're constantly claim how overpowered it is on soviets,...
Pls stop making things up.
...
perhaps its high time to start using your own tools instead of asking dad to break the tools of the other guy?
My tools are in a toolset in my garage.
As I have posted camo unit should simply not be able to navigate the late game battlefield undetected so easily regardless to what faction they belong, pls stop trying to presented this a axis/allies thing. |
Ah thanks, I mixed up JLI then.
Not sure if the gammon bomb is enough to warrant changing the camo type, but indeed they allow cheesy team weapon wipes.
It not necessary to change the camo type but they should be detected earlier.
Apart from camo type there is value of a radius where the unit is being detected. |
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
Heartless Jäger 
