the very first projectile, always lying between the 3rd and 4th bands, the rest of the shells are random
what appears to be random is actually following a pattern that ensures every rocket hits in a designated area along the drawn in-game indicator
Not sure if people were even criticizing the idea to change the target reticule to "circles", but I'll address this one quickly because it indeed doesn't make sense and would actually make things worse (the current in-game targeting indicator may not be perfect, but it is pretty accurate nonetheless).
I guess a lot of frustration comes from the fact that people don't know how scatter works for the Walking Stuka, or in other words, where to expect the rockets to land.
To make it short: each rocket has a 8 x 8 m square where it can land in, regardless of distance or orientation (due to the absence of range-dependent scatter), with all 6 squares forming a 48 x 8 m rectangle (see graph below for clarity).
The 'center point' of this rectangle (or the pivot the indicator rotates around) lies in the middle of the 3rd square, so the last rocket will actually impact a bit further from the center point than the first. Apart from this, each rocket will always land in its respective square, not anywhere else, meaning there are no gaps or anything such where rockets could never impact.
The actual point of impact in each square is of course totally random, so two projectiles can, at best, land right next to each other or, at worst, up to ~9 m apart - this is where the perceived gaps in the impact distribution arises from.
Now, as a TLDR, what does this all mean?
- The rectangular indicator is already a pretty good representation of the rocket impact pattern, and the only way to improve it would be to give it the actual dimensions of the in-game scatter box (48 x 8 m).
- There's no real secret to placing the barrage, apart from knowing the dimension of the scatter box and lining up the ability accordingly (including all the guesswork of where the target will have moved to by the time the rockets arrive, of course).
- There is, however, the possibility to either maximize the damage output or reduce the chance of dealing no damage at all to a given target, depending how the reticule is placed:
To maximize damage output, the target should be placed right in between two adjacent squares. This way there is the (rather small) chance of two rockets impacting right next to the target, but the odds to miss completely are also highest.
On the other hand, if the target sits right in the center of any square, chances to completely miss are rather small, leading to more consistent damage output on average.
|
|
edit: double post |
it is better to do this at random than when the projectile hits exactly where the shot was indicated. Since this makes calculations very vulnerable, for example, you provoke the calculation to decompose and at the same time make a precise salvo, and in most cases it is wiped. Also, there are calculations that take a long time to collect, for example, 120 mortar. Almost 100% of the time, he won't be able to dodge
It is better to be a random, as well as with other units. (this also applies to brummbar)
not quite sure if i understand correctly what you are trying to say, but from what i know (and tested previously) scatter works as intended for the stuka's creeping barrage, and every rocket hits in a randomized location. the only difference to, say, a mortar is that the stuka's scatter area is not dependent on distance and thus is always the same. this is also universal for almost all creeping barrage type abilities in the game, with the only exception (at least until after the balance patch hits) being the katyusha. |
That's fair, but on the whole it's rough.
Combat blitz vs blitz vs step on it vs overdrive vs flanking speed vs emergency war speed for example, some are speed boosts, some also provide combat buffs, they are all different but none of that is communicated...
Ost hull down and kv-1 hull down have different effects and are applied differently
Aimed shot for the Puma does differnt things depending on the target mark target does different things depending on the faction and none of them actually tells you what they do....
It goes on but I don't need to explain it to you. Like I said, a polish patch would be fantastic and a hope for coh3 is not needing to go to a 3rd party site to know what stuff does
fully agree! things like missing text strings and vague or outright wrong descriptions for units and abilities not only make the game feel pretty unpolished, but also steepen the learning curve for newer players much more than necessary. things would be a lot easier if the flavor text would display what exactly an ability or stripe of vet provides, instead of the generic 'increases the combat effectiveness of unit x' that you'd have to look up elswhere to get an idea what actually means (or worse, if it still applies). sadly, the amount of work required to update everything, together with the not too slim probability to fuck up something else entirely unrelated due to how the game is coded means it is highly unlikely such a polish patch is ever going to happen... but i'd happily be proven wrong on that of course |
Valentine is able to call arty into enemy base....
isn't that working as intended though? afaik all victor target abilities (like that of the german artillery officer) can be called into the base sector. |
UPDATE 2/19/2021 A couple of bugfixes and a new interface with fancy graphs ready to download here!
- Added a new graphical interface tab that allows comparison of up to 4 datasets and shows damage/kills over time, as well as the contribution of MGs and the main gun to overall damage and model kills.
In addition, another set of graphs can be used to visualize and compare the probability density and cumulative probability for a squad kill after n shots (or seconds) and displays the AoE and scatter area curves for each dataset.
On the left, a customizable table summarizes the most important values (e.g. DPS, KPS (kills per second), etc.) for quick reference.
- Included option to export/import datasets to/from .txt
- Fixed the damage reduction multiplier not correctly applying to machine gun damage
- Fixed an error in the TBS (time between shots) calculation affecting weapons with cooldown
|
|
well ok then... |
|
that's a really nicely thought out and well presented proposal, but i voted no still because i think being static is simply the defining trait of emplacements and they're balanced around this (e.g. have higher range and damage output). the ability to scuttle them once obsolete or in a bad position (maybe even with a small return of the initial investment) is as far as i'd go. |
I actually think all tanks should get the t34 treatment where standing in front of it ias a bad idea... Remove some of the RNG of requiring the cannon to deter infantry from walking at it.
i'd wager this is already the case, especially earlier in the game where crater cover is not yet too abundant and infantry not fully vetted. in these scenarios mgs are indeed the major contributor to overall ai for most tanks. still i think the biggest deterrent from walking up on a tank will always remain the low but non-zero chance of a lucky main gun shot instagibbing your whole squad rather than consistent dps |
According to the statistics on serealia, vipper seems to be right about the three PIV MGs being comparable to the two SOV mgs.
| All values approximate | Min range DPS | Max range DPS |
| T-34 | 28.3 | 13.5 |
| Panzer IV | 15.28 | 10.7 |
| Panzer IV (+ coax) | 30.38 | 14.68 |
The tank cannon performance vs infantry is hard to calculate, the T-34 and PIV share the same (AI relevant) statistics for their cannons other than: close AOE, Scatter distance max, and Reload Time.
An interesting outlier is that apparently the t-34 has "Damage all in Hold" set to "true", whereas the PIV does not. I'm not sure if that refers to the contents of transport vehicles, to garrisons, or to both.
Serealia calculates the difference between the 80 damage radius on both tanks as 0.02(units?) t-34 1.11 vs PIV 1.13.
I'm uncertain how to work out the impact of the scatter distance differences in a realistic sense. The T-34 has approximately 10% worse max scatter, but I dont know if that translates to 10% worse damage.
The biggest difference is the 6.1 second reload of the T-34 when compared to the 5.3-5.7 second(Why is this variable?) reload of the PIV (Though the T-34 gets significantly better reload bonuses at veterancy)
As GachiGasm has pointed out, you have kind of left out some crucial information.
as far as main gun ai performance is concerned, i did an analysis quite a while back in this post, and your estimate is quite accurate. the t-34/76 takes about 8-10% more shots (15-20% more time due to inferior reload) for a squad kill than the ost pz.iv between max and mid range using the cannon alone. at point blank this difference shrinks to zero and both perform essentially the same.
your conclusion on the mgs is also on point, though one major advantage the pz.iv has over the t-34 is that most of its mg dps comes from the coax and pintle, and thus is omnidirectional. this is especially important in cqc situations, where the t-34 is much less effective than the pz.iv. |
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
