Profile of Spinflight

a friend of mine said:"hunt with pen increase is good, but the tank need it more is the t34/76."

i think the new vet 2 mobility, the cromwell is good enough and feel like a cavalry tank should be. Tho, if some of the vet 2 mobility can be split into vet 1 to allow hunt to be given to T 34/76 will be also nice.

on the other hand, i still hate the churchill with two guy on the top set up. Please change it when it is still possible, get rid of the vicker K or make it in to upgrade to replace the commander. Further more, consider move WP shot from the comet to the churchill, with the wp, churchill can lost about 1 to 2 shot of Hp and be more supportive.

It would make more sense on the T34... Crom is meant to be capping you in the ass anyway.

Cromwell relies on speed, though stock it is barely faster than a PIV, so when is it meant to activate this? Before diving and it runs out before you get to the targets, after and you already know where they are so the map hack is useless. Also Hammer still provides basically this anyway? So yeah, it's a bit gimmicky on the Crom but would be an excellent addition to the T-34... Basicaly help it pen a couple of times before ramming.

Hell make the Crom the most expensive tier 3 vehicle if necessary but.. Moar speed! It can't rely on it's armour or firepower, has to have a significant speed advantage stock.

Right direction though needs fine tuning towards it's doctrinal role, both mid and late game.

The Churchill K merely increases the coax dps, which is welcome but it still pales in comparson to a PIV, which can put out 30 dps at close range and has a proper mantle that can fire in all directions. And the Panther which isn't meant to be an infantry killer. Seems to have broken the grenades and everything else with a main gun crit too.

So yeah, adds nothing that an equivalent increase in coax would. Though I do feel that all allied armour should be better compensated for getting in close, after all just about every Axis inf squad has fausts. DPS inside of about 20 isn't that useful.

To me Lelic chose the wrong Churchill. The Mk7 was a heavier armoured tank than the Tiger and wasn't per se an AI tank. The versions with a 3 inch howitzer in the hull, or the 95mm howi in the turret certainly were AI and had thinner armour. Though ingame it is just a medium tank which takes a long time to repair.

Think they missed a trick with the mine flail from Coh1 too.

Still not hearing what methodology is used...

Empirical, evidence based and substantive data driven figures? With automated testing over a large number of iterations? Mathematical modelling of units to ascertain compounding advantages? Or for that matter the asymetric advantages of Lanchester?

Or....

Is it just all pulled out of someone's ass?

IF, as appears to be claimed, AI fights have absolutely no relevance or bearing... Because, erm, it's playing a completely different game like... Or it smells or something...

Then what is the oh so superior model or tool being used?

Whataboutery snipped"

So I've played a few games, found numerous obvious bugs, felt that an already weak faction felt significantly weaker and gotten the impression that this is untested garbage based upon a wishlist of 'how do I win easier if playing a different faction'.

Testing it with the AI merely confirmed my suspicions.

So, what is the methodology for testing this patch? What data was used? All those famous tournament wins where someone picked the UKF in the finals? It feels completely untested.

Your assertions that this is merely down to quirks of the AI are moronic. It is the SAME AI being used pre and post patch and it didn't look like bofors were used earlier to me. I'm not even sure the AI built engineers in tier 1, or that players would.

Still that this patch puts the balance out to such a degree that UKF needs a +2 AI level advantage to win ( haven't actually tested that... But I'll gracefully assume that it can't be THAT bad) is pretty shocking.

I'm just trying to help out here, would be a good game if it was even vaguely balanced. Thought I'd check to see whether things were going in the right direction and whether the game was likely to be fun post patch. But......

No, it just shows which AI was programmed better. Different factions have different AI behaviours. It's no different that pairing different players with different skills.

Regardless it is Relic's game and Relic's AI indicates that this 'balance' patch has significantly nerfed the UKF.

Live version both feels stronger than the 'balance' patch and the AI matches confirm this. The same AI on live performs significantly better without the new patch.

You really can't get a fairer situation or comparison than the computer playing itself both pre and post patch. Any limitations of the AI are the same for both teams.

Doesn't matter how mong the AI is... It is equal mong. Unless someone comes up with a mathematical model which perfectly predicts the power and cost efficiency of units the only possible way to compare equal players is via the AI.

If there are any maps you think I should avoid then let me know.

For instance I just ran a USF hard versus OKW standard AI and USF did indeed win, after about half an hour. Russia on the same settings dispatched the OKW in a 20 min rofl stomp.

My feeling is that balance patch has made the UKF considerably weaker, will run UKF hard versus OKW standard on the live version to check.

Did run an AI battle with 300 popcap and unlimited resources once... The axis built loads of Leigs, Stukas and Pak 43s in addition to the normal PIVs and Pumas.