by range i mean that u don't need to saty at max range . or fight in open field, the bonus accuracy is just as effective at medium, close range
The special problem with VA is the units that get buffed, which can deal good mid to long range damage. This leaves your units (especially MGs, which are supposed to hard counter infantry and blobbing) less to no time to react. Even if you react in a split second, you might still lose your MG if the gunner dies early, AT guns are at high risk of being killed since they cannot retreat as well, tanks can get snared since Volks and Falls have Faust. So the only option you have then is to feed your infantry into the OKW blob to buy some more time for the team weapons.
SOV usually can't do that. Only DP28 guards can get this amount of long range DPS and they don't come with the commander. Penals are decent, but not as wipey as Fallschirmjäger. Shocks are very good units, but the fact that they need to close in for a few seconds before they can get their DPS off makes them still vulnerable to MGs or at least have these seconds to hit the retreat button.
To make it clear: I'm not saying that the buffs that VA provides are super over the top, but the current constellation of OKW surely makes it problematic and gives need for a change. |
|
Infiltration nades were pretty much broken at 15 MUN.
They enabled OKW infantry to throw two grenades and especially Volks are very strong with them, since they are lacking that that high burst potential of a normal nade compared to almost all other mainlines. They can be thrown very effectively on retreat paths as well without much skill needed, as the spread and number of nades will ensure a hit.
But back to the original post: I would not really compare them to molotovs, since they have different function. A normal nade would be more suitable if we want wo compare the damage for MUN investment efficiency. Herr I'd say that 20 mun are alright, meybe 25, but that's up to debate.
Are they worth a commander slot? There are not many similar abilities like infiltration nades. I would not compare them to Assault Grenadiere, since getting Assault Grenadiere also forces you to sacrifice snares and other things. The closest is the USF molotov/rifle nade ability in my opinion. |
Assault grenadiers do exactly that with sprint+infiltration grenades. Yet it suddenly FMR/VA become an issue same time CP2 Obersoldaten aka Falls gotten buffs? Hmmm
Also, if you consider that a problem why was USF ability that gives sprint and dropes smoke even exist, it was added literally this summer
Assault grenadiere sprint is quite expensive compared to Valiant Assault if you consider the number of units and duration. You also need to time it correctly due to the cooldown. And (biggest factor): there is no DPS boost. And of course an ability can become an issue once the units it effects get buffed. Suggesting something else would be plain stupid.
Does the UsF cover to cover give a DPS boost (can't look it up atm, thought it gave more survivability)? It is also restricted to a narrow area, which ensures that your front line won't get overrun.
I'm all in for reworking these abilities, however I think that FMR and VA should get different treatments, since SOV units are usually not that DPS heavy and mobile like OKW, but win fights by outlasting. Maybe giving SOV a DPS boost and OKW an RA boost could go a long way |
|
One quick idea:
What if the 17 ponder and the mortar pit (FOB is fine in my opinion) are locked behind a fuel side tech(maybe 10-20 fuel each), but given a slight buff (secondary buffs like utility, higher refund for tearing it down or cost decrease for the building itself etc) to compensate?
That way emplacements could be a viable strategy to play but would delay the medium tank even more, so the opponent has an advantage in the mid game.
Emplacements are decently easy to destroy at the moment, but on some maps stuff like the mortar pit can be placed behind shot blockers, which basically leaves counter mortars as the only option. That is bad design. Higher fuel cost would still allow for these strategies, but enforce competent defense in the mid game or even the need to tear them down before they get lost. |
what do you mean with cons? Cons have moderate to high accuracy but bad rate of fire. And if you take penals and cons, you already have all nondoc mainline units that soviets have...
He obviously meant that Cons don't have high DPS, so buffing them with +50% acc is something else as buffing All-range Fallschirmjäger and Volksgrenadiere (although it's just 25%), which can then quickly chew through your infantry |
|
I feel like these are very good changes. Some points probably need reevaluation, but all in all a large step forward.
Great work! |
|
If we really want to compare mortars/howitzer etc, we would need the following infos:
- scatter values (check)
- AoE profile (check)
- range, barrage and auto fire
- rate of fire
- cost
I think we're missing some info to fully compare them.
If somebody could give me the "raw data" for AoE (by that I mean the damage modifiers instead of the exact damage at the reference point), I can make a plot out of it to visualize. |
|
While I like the idea on mortars, the problem could be that mortars start wiping units behind sandbags maybe too easily, since they are super bunched up. Everybody keeps a slightly damaged squad on the front line, so if they get hit at the beginning of an attack your squad can be easily wiped.
However it's hard to determine if this will really become a huge problem. Maybe it won't. But very good suggestion, I like it for the mortars, but for tanks I would say no as well. |
Let's take a simple example to show to you that you really don't know what you are asking:
Lets assume grens and cons are perfectly balanced in 1v1. What change do they need to make to balance them in 2v2? My point is if the factions are perfectly balanced in 1v1 why they need to be balanced in 2v2? How are they umbalanced?
Gameplay shifts quite a lot. 4v4 is way more crowded than 1v1, since front line and map size do not quadruple. In team games it's less likely to be cut off, so resource income is WAY more stable, caches become more relevant, so gameplay shifts away from LV to late game vehicles. Artillery is more potent since it has more targets, loiters can be more devastating, but most of the time they are just shot down. And also a player can be taken out more easily if two or three players focus one down in one specific attack before the team mates can react properly, which can't be the case in 1v1 (obviously), where it is also much easier to predict the enemy, since you can keep track of the units and you only play against a single faction.
Balance in small modes is easier to achieve since there are less synergies (only units of the same faction can synergize) and there is no coordination with other players involved. In team games you can compensate mediocre micro by good teamplay, this is a level of complexity that 1v1s cannot have.
In short: Team games are mostly about teamplay and team synergy on a densely populated map with few gaps, while 1v1 is more about unit micro and exploiting unavoidable gaps in the enemy's front line. |
|
From my feeling of 2v2 games, caches need approx. 10 minutes (maybe even longer) to make their money back, which means that even of you build it early, you need to survive to the mid game (which is probably one of the key points where players can close often win the game) until you start reaping the rewards. In 4v4, this time is halved. So if you build it in early game, you have the reward in no time and your cache is much safer.
Make caches cheaper (maybe 200 MP), stackable and limit them to the building player only. And also maybe give OKW caches or something similar then |
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
