Login

russian armor

Centaur

16 Jul 2020, 13:04 PM
#21
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post16 Jul 2020, 13:02 PMKatitof

Then why the thread in the first place if you don't want to change it, but want to change it, but know it doesn't need changes, but it needs to be changed?

Doesn't seem you know what you want at all.

Ok at this point you are simply trolling or are incapable of understating simple things. Either way I can not help you. I am moving on.
16 Jul 2020, 13:26 PM
#22
avatar of Support Sapper

Posts: 1220 | Subs: 1

I mean, leave it alone, or, take a further step, give it a separate tech in platoon CP, lowered HP, adjust damage, give it stationary suppression, to make it in to some sort of AI/AA light vehicle. Brit now have a rush-able AI light vehicle, double as late game affordable AA platform. Timing can be fine tuned by the tech.
16 Jul 2020, 13:42 PM
#23
avatar of blvckdream

Posts: 2458 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post16 Jul 2020, 11:10 AMVipper
The centaur is the UKF AA tank with a cost of 320/100. Although that unit is good recently I find less and less reason to build it.

It AA,AI is good and even its anti vehicle performance (vs light armored target) is decent for an AA unit (obviously it no much for the PzIV).

The main issue is the current performance of Cromwell. For 40MP/10FU more one has access to the Cromwell that although having inferior AI it also comes with AT.

So unless AA is specifically need I would rather build a Cromwell.

Imo the solution to this issue is the lower the power level of Centaur to around 280-300 mp 80-90 fuel by reducing both price and performance. One might need to increase build time so it more difficult to rush.

The change will make the unit a better alternative to Cromwell for AI while also allow UKF to field a cheaper AA unit.


Seems like a good idea. As you said at the moment building the Centaur is basically only a good idea if you desperately need AA. Cromwell only comes a few seconds later and is the better overall tank with it's mobility.
16 Jul 2020, 13:46 PM
#24
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1



Seems like a good idea. As you said at the moment building the Centaur is basically only a good idea if you desperately need AA. Cromwell only comes a few seconds later and is the better overall tank with it's mobility.

Glad that you agree.

An additional bonus imo is that UKF that have gone AEC will still have access to an affordable AA unit.
16 Jul 2020, 14:44 PM
#25
avatar of GachiGasm

Posts: 1116 | Subs: 1



Seems like a good idea. As you said at the moment building the Centaur is basically only a good idea if you desperately need AA. Cromwell only comes a few seconds later and is the better overall tank with it's mobility.


As I already said in a previos thread, USF\UKF upped mainline inf are powerhouses in AI, thats why they dont need AI tank support early on and its better to go with the somewhat decent AI of cromwell but get AT with it.

You dont need centaur as a first tank early on, but it still has it place later, for example its better get centaur as a second tank if enemy is blobing or running around with schrecks blobs.
16 Jul 2020, 14:59 PM
#26
avatar of elchino7
Senior Moderator Badge

Posts: 8154 | Subs: 2

It all depends on what kind of stats you will be adjusting. Talking about "power level" is too broad.

What i can imagine out of a cheaper Centaur is a 560 HP vehicle with (MAYBE) a bit less mobility. I think the current offensive performance is fine so that leaves you really small room to adjust the unit.

I don't have the same feeling.
Centaur is in my opinion in a decent spot, at least decent enough that it does not need much attention at the moment. Power level compared to Ostwind is decent.
Maybe some slight alterations would be okay, but I think fiddling with it at the moment would cause more harm than good and probably suck up a lot of time.


Exactly. Feels like a luxury to spend time on the unit.

16 Jul 2020, 15:07 PM
#27
avatar of Stug life

Posts: 4474

If a unit is underperforming then it gets buffed. There is no logic whatsoever to nerfing and making it 20mp and 10-20 fuel cheaper.
no it actually works better this way for a lot of stuff as it gives them a new role, look at penals they increased the price but the performance too giving them new roles , etc

if the objective is to give alternative and not min maxing 2 units shifting role is better
16 Jul 2020, 15:16 PM
#28
avatar of Sander93

Posts: 3166 | Subs: 6

If a unit is underperforming then it gets buffed. There is no llogic whatsoever to nerfing and making it 20mp and 10-20 fuel cheaper.


Changing a unit's role or place within the roster (timing etc.) and adjusting the cost and the performance accordingly is a perfectly good way to make units or abilities more distinct or useful, rather than just outright buffing or nerfing them. It has been done quite a bit in the past with units like Assault Engineers or Panzerfusiliers. And for example in hindsight I wonder if it wouldn't have been better to "nerf" the Ostwind into a cheaper intermediate anti-light vehicle that might've really helped Ostheer against LVs, rather than buffing its performance into a 100 fuel AI vehicle.

Not that I really agree that the Centaur needs this. I think it's fine currently and that it's actually the Cromwell that could probably use a 10 fuel increase with its new AI performance to help make the Centaur stand out a bit more. Definitely not a priority.
16 Jul 2020, 15:23 PM
#29
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1



Changing a unit's role or place within the roster (timing etc.) and adjusting the cost and the performance accordingly is a perfectly fine way to make units or abilities more distinct or useful. It has been done quite a bit in the past with units like Assault Engineers or Panzerfusiliers. And for example in hindsight I wonder if it wouldn't have been better to "nerf" the Ostwind into a cheaper intermediate anti-light vehicle that might've really helped Ostheer against LVs, rather than buffing its performance into a 100 fuel AI vehicle.

I agree about the ostwind and it was what I had actually suggested at the time, increasing the price of the ostwind was a step in the wrong direction.


Not that I really agree that the Centaur needs this. I think it's fine currently and that it's actually the Cromwell that could probably use a 10 fuel increase with its new AI performance to help make the Centaur stand out a bit more. Definitely not a priority.

(Imagine the trolling if I had suggested increasing the price of Cromwell...point remains the prices of Cromwell and Centaur are to close and that creates an overlap in AI department.
16 Jul 2020, 16:10 PM
#30
avatar of T.R. Stormjäger

Posts: 3588 | Subs: 3



Changing a unit's role or place within the roster (timing etc.) and adjusting the cost and the performance accordingly is a perfectly good way to make units or abilities more distinct or useful, rather than just outright buffing or nerfing them. It has been done quite a bit in the past with units like Assault Engineers or Panzerfusiliers. And for example in hindsight I wonder if it wouldn't have been better to "nerf" the Ostwind into a cheaper intermediate anti-light vehicle that might've really helped Ostheer against LVs, rather than buffing its performance into a 100 fuel AI vehicle.

Not that I really agree that the Centaur needs this. I think it's fine currently and that it's actually the Cromwell that could probably use a 10 fuel increase with its new AI performance to help make the Centaur stand out a bit more. Definitely not a priority.


That is some solid logic regarding infantry and support weapons. On the other hand, making a centaur arrive literally 20 seconds earlier and be weaker is a nerf, there is no way around it whatsoever.
16 Jul 2020, 16:11 PM
#31
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1

It all depends on what kind of stats you will be adjusting. Talking about "power level" is too broad.

What i can imagine out of a cheaper Centaur is a 560 HP vehicle with (MAYBE) a bit less mobility. I think the current offensive performance is fine so that leaves you really small room to adjust the unit.


I deliberately did not make any suggestion that included numbers in a vain effort to avoid the usual claims "you are trying to get all allied units nerfed" (but the three troll, troll patrol does not seem to care what people actually post and they simply continue with their narrative).

As for stats I wouldn't touch the speed, armor and target size (160/80, 18) on the other hand could be lowered thou since they are superior to that of the Ostwind.
16 Jul 2020, 16:56 PM
#32
avatar of SkysTheLimit

Posts: 3423 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post16 Jul 2020, 12:20 PMKatitof

How do we call lowering stats of a unit?


You know damn well it's different when the person is also suggesting buffing its accessibility at the same time

I do think Brits AA is in a tough spot. If you get an AEC as is common, then centaur is your only stock AA option. Depends on how much you want to reduce anti-infantry power, but I can see the logic to the idea
16 Jul 2020, 17:17 PM
#33
avatar of Euan

Posts: 177

A good argument and a logical idea from Vipper. Don't know if I agree with the particular solution. But it's certainly in a slightly useless spot for 1v1.

The only really useful way to use it is to get two AT guns, then carefully vet it up ASAP to use the special ability. The regular fire is just not that good any more compared to a Cromwell (Centaur was nerfed and Crom buffed) especially against full health squads since it rarely takes down a unit in the first volley.

That really limits it's use to AA and blob control in team games. Maybe that's fine, though, maybe not all units need to be useful in all modes...
16 Jul 2020, 17:33 PM
#34
avatar of ShadowLinkX37
Director of Moderation Badge

Posts: 4183 | Subs: 4

I find the centaur good currently. Although I do think going for it can be quite risky. Frankly more risky than going ostwind as OST due to the centaurs lower mobility. Lowering its price in exchange for maybe a slight mobility buff and armor reduction could be a good spot to touch on IMO.

Although I think the vet 1 needs to be considered heavily. It can currently wipe 2x AT guns with ease if it manages to survive the initial push in.
16 Jul 2020, 18:20 PM
#36
avatar of Flying Dustbin

Posts: 270 | Subs: 1

I just wish it was faster.
16 Jul 2020, 18:34 PM
#37
avatar of Lago

Posts: 3260

The Centaur is much better against infantry than the Cromwell. It's a good unit that'd be very powerful in any other faction.

If the AEC had a similar penetration profile to the Puma, UKF would have the mobile AT to support the Centaur.

If UKF had a mortar, it'd be able to go for team weapon builds without getting hard countered and support the Centaur with 6-pounders.

It's a good unit hamstrung by being in an incomplete faction.
16 Jul 2020, 19:04 PM
#38
avatar of Protos Angelus

Posts: 1515

jump backJump back to quoted post16 Jul 2020, 18:34 PMLago
The Centaur is much better against infantry than the Cromwell. It's a good unit that'd be very powerful in any other faction.

If the AEC had a similar penetration profile to the Puma, UKF would have the mobile AT to support the Centaur.

If UKF had a mortar, it'd be able to go for team weapon builds without getting hard countered and support the Centaur with 6-pounders.

It's a good unit hamstrung by being in an incomplete faction.


This.

Centaur by itself needs no buffs/nerfs in any way shape or form. It's just not a tank you build early on unless you have 2 squads of engies double equipped with piats to support it. It can synergize well with them especially by using it as a bait (P4 would be inclined to rush it). Other than that, it can be as a counter flank if you have AT squads. It's extremely situational. And extremely situational units do not get fixed by buffing or nerfing them. They get fixed by changing their environment.
16 Jul 2020, 19:07 PM
#39
avatar of Katitof

Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8

no it actually works better this way for a lot of stuff as it gives them a new role, look at penals they increased the price but the performance too giving them new roles , etc

if the objective is to give alternative and not min maxing 2 units shifting role is better

Penals were completely reworked if you have already forgotten.
They were more expensive cons with less utility, more cqc firepower and flamer, overlapping with both, cons and flamer CEs, not having any identity of their own.

Also, its AI/AA specialist unit and already one of a kind in UKF roster, what kind of role shift you want for it?
Should it salvage wrecks? Get repair aura? Detect mines?
16 Jul 2020, 19:28 PM
#40
avatar of T.R. Stormjäger

Posts: 3588 | Subs: 3

I disagree that the Centaur is a bad unit or that it's in a bad spot or that it needs to come earlier. Well I generally disagree with this stupid trend in balancing discussions that everything needs to arrive earlier and every faction needs everything to be accessible, which has led to dumb buffs like Pgrens in T0.

Anyway, the Centaur imo is a victim of the current 1v1 meta, which is to just spam generalist mediums and support them with AT guns.
1 user is browsing this thread: 1 guest

Ladders Top 10

  • #
    Steam Alias
    W
    L
    %
    Streak
Data provided by Relic Relic Entertainment

Replay highlight

VS
  • U.S. Forces flag cblanco ★
  • The British Forces flag 보드카 중대
  • Oberkommando West flag VonManteuffel
  • Ostheer flag Heartless Jäger
uploaded by XXxxHeartlessxxXX

Board Info

764 users are online: 764 guests
3 posts in the last 24h
4 posts in the last week
23 posts in the last month
Registered members: 48722
Welcome our newest member, asherllc
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM