Profile of Vipper

Well, I've been doing a little bit of testing, and I can seemingly confirm that this... isnt bugged.

My stormtroopers cloak properly in cover, regardless of whether they are upgraded with MP40s/Panzershrecks or not, so this doesn't appear to be broken on German Infantry stormtroopers, at least, though I have no reason to believe the other doctrine's Stormtroopers are different in any way.

Are you sure enemy units aren't simply getting too close to your cover in the second instance, Cinders? Because there seems to be no issue with Stormtrooper cloak.

This was done, of course, in Cheatmod, though there's nothing involved in Cheatmod that should "unbug" Stormtroopers.

Did you use the command ability to get the ST or the did you spawn the from "thin air"? Instant production can create issues some times since the units/building produce are not always identical with live game...

It doesn't take much effort to stop this, especially with mortar smoke finally being fixed


Because they get something else...?


"The passive bonus of the Vickers is being changed into a timed ability. This should allow the Vickers's veterancy 1 ability be more useful in the majority of situation."

Vet 1 bonus was too limited, so they changed it

Changing the vet 1 ability from passive to active fine (not necessary imo but fine) and the extra damage and penetration are already good bonuses.

Having a +7 range bonus is simply uncalled for and no justification is provide for it. It seems more of leftover of the passive than a well though decision that serves a purpose.

There are several other bonuses provided to HMG by active abilities that have been tested and work. There is nothing to justify this experimental extra range bonus that has the potential to cause several issues like making vicker harder to flank and able to fire on other hmg and even bunkers with impunity, while out ranging light vehicles like the 222 and FHT by large margin.

In my book active >>> passive abilities from a game design perspective. The old passive ability was either useless (never used) or was borderline toxic depending on the map/garrison in question. It was kind of cool to synergize them with trenches but more difficult to pull off versus good players. The active ability limits the duration so you can't just chuck the vickers somewhere and have the extra range always on with no micro. Much better.

The bonuses of the passive created little issues exactly because of the limitations of garrison.

Just because there little issues when the limitation where in place does not mean that there will not be issues once these limitation are removed.

The maxim ability works fine and is "historically" correct for a water cooled HMG as vickers is, and something similar can be easily implemented if adjusted to specific weapon so that ability so that Vicker has an active ability instead of passive one.

Your scenario of the extra range being problematic takes a lot of effort. You have to set up a vickers *just* out of range of other HMGs. Then activate the ability/spend munitions and then hope your max range DPS/suppression is enough to turn an engagement in your favor in the time frame of the ability. Out of sheer micro limitations it's more likely players either aren't going to use the ability (looking at you Maxim Vet 1) or will use it defensively when they have sight on an approaching blob/ light vehicle similar to how people use incendiary rounds more often than not. Never mind the fact that if you're spending resources then you would expect to have some sort of advantage for using the ability.

No it does not take allot of effort, one simply uses a unit to spot for the HMG and pushes a button and then is able to cover more area than other HMGs and fire at longer range (7 extra range is not "just" outside of range it significant distance in game). The ability makes the HMG bother better being used both in defense and in even in attack.

The extra no other HMG gets and there is no actual reason given to explain why it is given. The extra range is an experimental change that does not "fix" anything and is there for no apparent reason. There are tested solution that work and no real reason to implement this one.

If Flamers have an issue, its not a "cover" issue, it'll be to do with Flamers likely having a projectile of some sort. I mean, this is why Tanks and other projectile units have issues with height, after all.

Flamer do not have a projectile so the issue is irrelevant to the issue "ballistic weapon" have

I'm reasonably certain the raycast blocker (Or however the engine calculates it) governing "cover" properties is infinitely high, or at least so high as to be irrelevant in any legitimate sense in the game. You'd need to be absurdly high off of the target, and already within the ten range that invalidates cover anyway.

This is assuming there's even a "height" given to either the raycast or the blocker, I'm not even sure the cover calculation interacts with height at all. I dont see any reason it wouldn't be just be locked on the z-axis, so unless Lelic used some really stupid way to calculate whether one unit behind cover relative to another, I don't see this being a thing.

It rather easy to have cover problems with height difference since cover can be direction and the engine might believe that that there is no cover from the direction fire is coming if there sufficient height difference. Once more I am not saying there such an issue but I wouldn't be surprised if there still was one.

I had actually pointed out that to Relic and they did make change, which is included in patch notes:

"Directional cover is now analyzed on a 2D basis. This prevents scenarios from occurring where entities would not receive their cover bonus."

sturm can get 5 vet and the best way to use these units is move in a straight line where your target is, so lower the time to fire..don't really need the turret, turret rotating gives the enemy unit more time to react

Rotating the vehicle to fire gives more time to react than rotating the turret...