Check dps at various ranges before you compare shock on FMR and falls with VA pls.
If you get rid of the sprint in combat (which you should) there will be little difference in the way shock preform with and without FMR as they don't do much beyond cqb anyways.
Falls are great at all ranges
Perhaps swapping VA to a durability buff instead of an accuracy one might help make attacking with falls better but not overbearing. Their design is supposed to be glass cannon so making them a bit tougher instead of cannonier might be the way forward
Durability buff VA sounds good. Did you think about the means of buff application? RA buff would help them avoid suppression so imho it's a no-go as it would continue to promote A-move MG assault blobs. Damage reduction would also work efficiently for blobs as they wouldn't be as punished by Katy barrages or nades. One last way that I can think of to improve the survivability is by armour application, but I don't know if that affects suppression or not and thus MG assaults. It would definitely make them more survivable in firefights, but not enough to promote blobbing as that would still be countered by indirect fire and barrages. Global accuracy buff abilities are problematic and I think that all should be altered.
I'm happy that balance team realised that the multitude of buffs that affected Falls was possibly too many and they are planning to revert some of them, especially as Sander said he would rather underadjust than overdo the game changes. |
u might want to check osther puma
Nobody plays that doctrine anymore after being tied to tech, 99% of Pumas you see come from OKW and the time needed for you can acquire them is shorter than the time needed to acquire SU76.
Vet 3 SU76 should definitely have 160 damage like Puma Vet 3. That is definitely fine by me but it vets faster in contrast to Puma since it penetrates far better and more often.
Even SU76 can counter sniper at range with barrage if lucky. Dont have to get close
This is a far stretch.
Rate of fire is practically similar or the same around 4 seconds with having minor +-0.3 difference.
Not from my experience, SU76 has additional ~0,9s wind down that Puma doesn't have. Per my understanding this means that Puma fires more or less 5 shots while SU76 fires 4. It is considerable ROF difference. Please, correct me if I'm wrong.
Barrage is more handy in situations since there is more opportunity windows to use it effectively in contrast.
It can be used more often than the turret-lock shot, but the latter can be more rewarding.
Smoke for Puma since its penetration is worse.
Penetration has nothing to do with smoke, also Puma has relatively high near-mid penetration for a LV which allows it to dive once you use the turret-lock on enemy medium tank.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not here to argue, but I wanted to highlight that Puma is a very strong light vehicle that benefits from 160 dmg at vet3 so applying the same to SU76 would be fair move. Vehicles would still be asymmetrical with different strengths, but SU76 would get similar dmg breakdown treatment with veterancy as Puma.
I didn't count, but SU76 indeed feels like the least used SOV vehicle, vet3 160 dmg would let it scale better and have more impactful damage breakdown. |
SU76 has far better penetration than Puma and better range by 10, same damage as Puma. SU76 is the earliest TD anyone can get.
It has a useful 6 shot barrage which is very useful against infantry.
It is not meant to deal with heavies at all. It is a light tank though it will be most definitely having better chances than any other light tank available in game.
Puma has far better mobility than SU76 and better rate of fire, has turret and more damage at vet 3 than SU76 which allows it to 4-hit-kill mediums, while lone SU76 always needs 5 or 6 hits depending on vet.
It has very powerful turret lock shot that allows it to solo mediums in direct combat (engagement in a vacuum).
It also kills snipers easily with the coaxial, self-spots, has defensive smoke and imho is the best LV AT platform in the game atm.
Increasing the dmg bonus of SU76 when vet3 so it deals 160 dmg is not unreasonable, especially considering the late timing of SU76 compared to Puma. |
bla bla
You are super stubborn and clearly don't use your flak HT as a support to your inf, or your army composition/positioning is bad, or you misuse it some other way if it has to solo M20 etc. Blvckdream and I both gave you advice on when it's best to use it. Surprisingly enough, we both gave you the same advice, which would suggest it's not just an opinion of an individual but a common knowledge.
Please, show some humility and practise more with it, it's a synergy weapon. Your faust platform and Spios should always be somewhere around to give it a quick repair or snare enemy lights. You can also use it as a bait for stuart or T70 if you have rak/mines around. Flak HT struggles most when enemy has AT gun or AEC, this is why it's most useful vs SOV T1 and USF LT opening, both of which are good vs OKW. |
that's why i said up the cost to 340 and if need make fg 42 cost 80 instead of 60 (like 2 bren)
yes hugging each other pio most likely win , but close range is up to 10 range (0-10 close,10-25 mid,25-35 long) for example pio dps caps at 8 range
I see, but it's difficult to judge distance without any tool, I would suggest using range map for similar tests in the future.
Cheers and have a good day. |
Hi all,
I recently played a game in which I was USF and my Stuart tank survived until the end, racking up quite a bit of damage and kills along the way. My Stuart tank saw far more action than my M26 Pershing tank and as a result, the Stuart tank actually had slightly more damage dealt not only against vehicles but also against infantry; in total, the Stuart had slightly more cumulative damage overall than the Pershing. However, at the end of the game, the Stuart received an efficiency rating of approximately 129%, while the Pershing received an efficiency rating of approximately 230%. How is this possible? The Stuart costs far less resources than the Pershing, and the Stuart actually did more overall damage than the Pershing and also slightly more in each category (vehicles as well as infantry). I believe the efficiency calculator may be bugged. The game was played on Sept. 11th at around 9pm EST.
Thanks in advance if someone can correct this.
Everyone saw this topic, nobody bothered to reply so here is my attempt:
I don't know how the efficiency is calculated, but based on my observations, if you exit vehicle as USF it counts almost the same for efficiency rating as if you lost the vehicle. All USF vahicles, except for those that you can't exit, always have low efficiency due to ability to exit and repair being used by a player.
Also nobody really cares about efficiency rating, it's an epeen thing, so just ignore it, especially as USF.
/thread |
..... here some multiple test u can see the range and everything
https://imgur.com/a/7S2zwRI
out of 5 fight 2 were won by pathfinder
on the topic of falls i already shown they are similar to commando with 2 bren
does the 2 bren commando make volks or gren unplayable ?
if u don't believe test and won't do ur own here some simple math
at long range 2 bren alone deal 24+ damage, old fg42 dealt 20, lets' high ball and say the cd and fire rate buff increase the dps to 24 damage, 1 model lost for each falls is - 6 damage while a model lose of a commando will be 0 as bren pass to other (until u are 1 man in that case u lose 12 damage)
at close range 3 smg will deal more damage than 3 fg 42 already , and 2 bren will make up the difference with the fg 42
Good, commandos coming at 2CP for 320MP getting AT nade confirmed because that will be balanced just like Falls.
Next time put the pioneers so all units fight close range, just go 5 length units further like any OST player would. The first test from the top is a perfect example of 5 range too far. With pioneers you have to hug your enemy and you are not doing that in these tests giving pathfinders an advantage because the last models alive will fight at ~10 range where pios don't really deal any damage anymore. Can you use the range map next time so we can see the distance and not have to guess due to perspective? It will allow your tests to be more consistent too.
Sorry if my tone got offensive at any point, I assume you have good intentions with your posts and you mean all the best for game balance-wise, but There will be more field presence from Falls than any 3CP elite infantry which is going to affect the infantry engagements. Also thank you for taking time to perform more tests, even if I have objections about the way they were performed. |
Btw just so u know, pathfinder have carbine which have almost double the close range dps than pioneers mp 40s , instead of being an asshole do ur test , and check stats
I have performed this test before and described my testing configuration, have you not ignored it, you wouldn't tell me to do my test. I know the stats, but I also know that this magical CQC dps of pathfinder carbines gets butchered if they lose a model, because the number of carbines goes down from 2->1
i didn't ignore them, i simply said path finder can do it , maybe 40% , but they can
The only scenario when these unupgraded vet 0 squads clash and pathfinders can win vs pioneers at CQC is when the pioneers' owner doesn't close the distance and leaves them at medium range. I will translate it for you, everyone and their moms always close the distance with pioneers, because pioneers' only chance vs any infantry unit is when they are very close because of their weapon profile. When you do your test and let the last models fight at medium range, it's not what a player would do, it's also not CQC, it breaks the test and bends the results. 40% pathfinder win rate is a totally imaginary result that has nothing to do with this CQC engagement. You may have done this unintentionally or you may be manipulating numbers to make some units seem stronger/weaker than they are, especially that it was related to the unupgraded Panzer Fusilier performance at all ranges to which I compared the unupgraded pathfinder fighting performance.
I am sure some of your tests are done properly but not that one. You should also stop insulting others and stop calling them biased if it's you that manipulates the test results.
Speaking from 2v2 perspective about Falls:
Fallschirmjager used to have slightly lower dps at close range than Pgrens and significantly higher long range dps than pgrens, they also benefited from stock camo and ability to faust that Pgrens don't have. Falls can also throw a gas/smoke nade and bundle nade. It was a strong and versatile squad pre-patch that could also be used to ambush enemy snipers, but they were coming late at 3cp and were very expensive. I don't know why all the buffs hit them all at once. They would be fine with just a price drop to 340 like Pgrens. I like when units are available earlier so you can fit them in your army composition, but having several of the doctrinal elite infantry AI specialist in the roster makes the late game horrible for infantry engagements skill-wise. You no longer need to make use of camo and ambush, A-move is more feasible now than before. Time to kill on inf units with such changes is too brutal in my opinion. Before the patch total long range DPS of vet 0 Falls-squad was more or less equal to 5xBARs which was very high. They had excellent DPS at all ranges anyway. New Falls deal even more damage than that. New Falls meta is going to be yet another reason why playing conscripts is not going to pay off. You need a high DPS infantry to kill the enemy before he kills you, or you need rockets. It is JLI all over again.
BAR vs FG42 https://imgur.com/a/zrQLKsf |
......... i posted them look above
Btw just so u know, pathfinder have carbine which have almost double the close range dps than pioneers mp 40s , instead of being an asshole do ur test , and check stats
Sometimes ur biased opinion might get in the way
U and kirrik should prove something before saying someone else test are rigged cause they don’t like the outcome
U better check that anti vaxxer /flat earther mentality of “test are only ok if they fit my narrative”
Well, I also have done the pio vs path test and pasted results that you have clearly ignored. I would not doubt your tests if not for a fact that your close range is actually medium range just so you can prove your point.
You can kiss my ass.
Pathfinders have deceptively high close range damage with their carbines.
I know, but the moment they lose 1 or 2 models their close range dps is insignificant, this is why they lose this engagement. |
no vet is fine, they lose to commando at vet 5
You managed to lose with pioneers in a CQC test vs regular pathfinders. I don't trust you with tests anymore. |
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
