Non garrison cover is affected by a mechanic called "point blank". All small arm fire basically ignore defensive cover bonuses when they are below 10 range. This doesn't apply to garrison cover.
Thanks for the info, for some reason I think I remember this mechanic, but it hasn't stuck in my head for a while. |
but the cover effect is always taken regardless of whether the opponent unit is approaching a certain distance.
I do not understand what you mean here. Are you saying that the cover effect is active regardless of the distance of the opponent, because this is true for all types of cover.
Do you mean the cover is active whenever an opponent is entering an unspecified distance? And if so, please specify this distance you are referring to and why that distance to target in particular should punish defenders.
Or are you saying that the cover effect is granted to the approaching enemy? |
looks like you are playing linnen forest in 4v4. if you cant have enough skills to combine mortars ats and infantry, just build a 105. it will help you a lot.
or make pak43. it costs almost similar to mortar pit.
Perhaps you dont understand the point that i was making. The change has nothing to do with mode, game size or map.
Let me try to lay it out for you.
Mortars are indirect fire weapons that function as counters to static play, area denial and saturation
Mortar Veterancy 3 reduces the area the mortar shells can land in.
This reduces the ability for them to perform in the area denial and saturation role.
Thus, veterancy 3 is at best a net neutral in terms of what it gives to the unit, and possibly a hindrance. |
bwtter accuracy means more consistent usability. something most people here crave for. they dont like RN>G
Only in the role of knocking out singular targets. It doesn't help in area denial or saturation. An equivalent increase in rate of fire should provide the same DPS increase against a single target without lessening its ability to blanket a larger area with fire. |
I think it's a preference thing. Accuracy allows to pin team weapons faster and punish opponent if he doesn't pay attention. I guess both options are equally good but you can't have both.
Well, both rate of fire and accuracy would increase DPS against a single target at a similar ratio. The difference is that increasing accuracy limits its use in saturation, increasing rate of fire keeps it while upping the DPS against single targets as well. |
|
I'd just like to suggest that the mortar vet 3 bonus on most mortars be shifted from +30% accuracy to +30% rate of fire - or 20% if 30 is too much.
The way I see it is that mortars are not just indirect fire meant to take out individual stationary targets,they are also have saturation utility in which they hit targets in a large area.
In a lot of cases I feel the +30% accuracy is actually detrimental to the mortars job.
One example of this is bombarding a bofors emplacement. Without vet, the mortar will not only be a threat to the bofors, but also to the repair crews as the mortar barrage can scatter(no pun intended) around a bit. With vet, this actually becomes less an issue for the repair teams as they can either move to the side not being barraged, or if the barrage is on the center, avoid taking hits entirely.
Anyone else agree or if not, is this just an unfounded issue? |
|
Maybe its just me but I cannot stand the fact you have to wait sometimes upwards of a minute on the end screen before ending the match.
You know what I mean, that point gain supply drop segment that you have to sit through every time at the end.
This is particularly annoying when you have a poor match where you made mistakes that you recognized immediately after the fact and you just want to forget the dumb things you did and move on, or if you are saddled with opponents who just want to rub it in your face after you surrender(which the end title does anyway).
Just give us the option to hit "esc" to fast track through it please. |
Thread: SU-7612 Jul 2018, 15:52 PM
The two main stated weaknesses of the vehicle are accuracy and dps. I'm not convinced that the either is a problem. You may do low damage per shot, and you only have a 55% chance to hit at max range against a p4 or similar target but penetration is guaranteed. Believe it or not, puma isn't just for flanking. In my opinion it's a great skirmishing vehicle because of its range relative to mediums and speed and handling but it cannot trade at close range and the turret traverse makes it very dangerous to try to get in close. As a plinker at max range, not only does the puma have the same "low" 55% chance to hit mediums, against most common targets it's chance to penetrate is only about half. Puma may have higher theoretical dps against targts that it autopenetrates like the su76(a big reason by your test was flawed, you should have done it using expected opponents) but actual dps at safe ranges against targets with any armor is poor. Yet despite the limitations of both vehicles I find each to be useful. If I can get away with substituting an su76 for an su85 in the late game I will to save fuel(that is, if I'm facing off against primarily tier 3 vehicle play). Honestly it just sounds like a learn to play issue.
|
Thread: SU-7612 Jul 2018, 13:27 PM
1. at range 60 the puma cant fire back... though the SU-76 is not going to hit jack shit either.. the puma has a turret and is faster though and can disable the SU-76 at vet 1 and has smoke... and is cheaper by 5 fuel.. did i mention smoke?
2. without a 35 muni ability? the puma... it has a machinegun and actually kills models on occasion with its 50mm... with its abilities yes the SU-76 is better... but then the puma has abilities of its own that make it lethal to tanks...
As a Soviet main I feel the Su76 is alright in terms of cost efficiency. Regarding its accuracy, iirc the panzer 4 has a target size of 40 multiplied by the long range accuracy of the su76 of 0.025 and you have a 100% hit rate assuming those numbers are correct. In addition, the su76 scales far better than the puma due to its higher penetration at all ranges and ability to tank 3 at shots instead of 2. Don't get me wrong I consider both vehicles very cost effective . you just can't dismiss the su76 because it's penetration is lower than the main line tank destroyers. Both the puma and su76 fill the niche they are in just fine as stop tap light anti tank with the puma being a stronger counter to light vehicles and the su76 scaling better due to its effectiveness against medium tanks and longer range. The barrage is just extra And to be honest, I wouldn't be that bothered if they removed it entirely even without compensating buffs
|
Snipers are not needed for combined arms, they ruin it infact, when they hardcounter both infantry and support weapons.
But it doesn't reward troop composition, all you need is infantry with snares and you're good to go.
Everything else gets hardcountered by the sniper.
In a game about veterancy, unit retention, RNG, positioning, flanking and cover, a unit that ignores it all (snipers) is broken.
Consider this in context with the changes I proposed which reduce sniper lethality. |
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
Serrith
