The delay between it being triggered and actually landing might want to be reduced if there's a smoke effect added. ..
If it get a smoke its price and CP should go down since it does less damage than other late game abilities.
The main reason it was nerfed in the first place was the combination of stuka/reckon elefant and sicnce that is not the case anymore... |
|
IRHT is currently not worth it.
I like sneakeye implementation better. |
...
As an aside: The Balance team making Fusilier K98s better while nerfing their G43s will kind of make the squad weaker, due to G43s being transferable. They'll be losing more DPS (Especially at closer ranges) per model loss in comparison to how much they lose now.
...
Their performance would become worse than the cheaper penals... |
Not sure if it was just how I perceived it, but I had one game where the raketenwerfer refused to fire out of stealth. Once manually disabling stealth it fired.
Happend before the hotfix and on the map road to baku.
Just wondering if somebody else noticed some odd behaviour with the unit.
Have seen the same with hmgs not firing not related to cloak |
I don't think it works like this. If I understand it correctly, the values are given for the Faust weapon which has a max 30 range. Cast range of the ability is 17 (or 18?), which basically means you have a pen value of about 150 at least. The only question remains when the distance check is being done: the moment you click the ability or the moment the dude actually takes his pocket Faust and fires it.
Regardless how the mechanics work exactly there is change that one of the two faust can bounce and thus fail to do engine damage. I have seen it happen.
2 AT grenades do enough deflection damage to cause engine damage.
Imo faust and AT grenades are different weapons types (and faust is a more advanced weapons) so it makes sense to have different penetration values. |
Allied snares are indeed weaker. Medium tanks are not the only tanks on the field. Both the Brummbar and Jagdpanzer can take between two and three snares before they receive engine damage, dependent on the luck of the draw.
Allied snares have the dubiously intentional benefit of apparently retaining lockon around sight blockers. This isnt communicated in the game at all, has absolutely no logical basis, and is more likely a bug or oversight than an actually intentional trait.
Even if we're just talking about mediums, allied snares take, on average, around one more application to have killed a 640HP axis tank, than a Gren faust takes to kill an allied tank. Why?
Also: 140 far penetration on the Grenadier Faust is at 30 range. The faust's actual maximum cast range is 18 (or 19.26~, with the range bulletin).
The problem is that you are looking it from allies vs Axis and trying to prove that axis have an clear advantage in snare.
There are things that need to be fixed but making all snare having 100% chance to penetrate and doing the same damage on deflection imo is not necessary. |
ATGs are primarily interested in damaging units, and so interactions with unit armour make sense. Snares are not primarily a "damage dealer" ability, their main goal is to cause engine damage. This is made less consistent by the fact that they have a chance to deflect, which can cause them to sometimes not cause engine damage in the expected number of strikes. This part of the interaction doesn't add anything to the game.
The mechanics behind snares require that they cause damage, as being snared requires that a (medium or heavy) vehicle reach 75% health, but due to this they should not cause a random amount of damage.
If you can fathom a way to ensure that snares reliably cause engine damage in x number of strikes on a given vehicle regardless of whether they deflect or penetrate, then I'd be "happy" to see their penetration/deflection damage values stay as they are. I mean, if all you want is Allied snares to be weaker than Axis ones, then just have allied snares always do 80 damage, and Axis ones always do 100, making units with health equal to or greater than the panther more resistant to allied snares than equivalent allied ones are to Axis snares. Snares can be balanced differently without being random.
I still think all snares should be standardised, however. I really don't think there's any need at all for Allies to have weaker ones than the Axis.
With 160 total damage 2 AT grenades will always cause engine damage to medium tank.
On the other hand 2 faust with 140 far penetration have a 0.24% probability to bounce and not cause engine damage.
Allied snare are different not weaker.
Imo the penetration and deflection mechanism is fine for snares. |
Nobody said anything against the 75% mark.
But what is the reason then that Axis (Grens have some limited trade off, Volks none at all) get in general better snares than Allies for the same price and for the same units (i.e. mainline infantry)
Not really.
AT grenades work in smoke and shot blockers, faust does not.
AT grenades have lower penetration but more deflection damage.
Which is better is simply situational.
I have lost grenadier from trying to faust repeatedly only to canceled by shot blockers and at that moment I was wishing for an AT grenade... |
Why SHOULDN'T it be standardised? There's no reason for snares to be inconsistent/random at all in their mechanics. Allied snares bouncing doesn't add anything interesting to the game, it just causes frustration. If you want Axis and Allied snares to be balanced differently it should be in a consistent way (i.e allied snares are cheaper, but cause less damage (to the point they don't two-shot 800hp vehicle's engines)), though I don't think Axis and Allied snares SHOULD be different in their mechanics at all.
Interacting with armor is neither inconsistent nor random...It like saying ATG are random and inconsistent because they have different penetration values.
Not causing engine damage at 75% or dying at 0 HP is an inconstancy and should be fixed. |
|
If you opponent spams kubels you can use the WC51 or the RE mines |
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
Heartless Jäger 
