Login

russian armor

Heavy Gammon bombs/ smoke

22 Feb 2020, 19:04 PM
#21
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 7615 | Subs: 1

The general consensus seems to be that Heavy Gammon Bombs are the exact opposite of a game issue.

And your source for "general consensus"?
Have you tested in winter preview games?
Any reason why in your opinion IS should have access to a demolition weapon?
22 Feb 2020, 19:26 PM
#22
avatar of Vermillion_Hawk

Posts: 42

I don't care whether or not they have "access", I do care about spurious arguments based on no experience whatsoever being advanced to nerf, of all things, probably one of the least-used abilities in the game.
22 Feb 2020, 19:44 PM
#23
avatar of Heavy Sapper

Posts: 556

jump backJump back to quoted post22 Feb 2020, 18:20 PMVipper

If it is demolition weapon move to Ro.En.


CE have demo yet penal still have satchel, so, what is the problem here ?
22 Feb 2020, 20:10 PM
#24
avatar of Mazianni

Posts: 700

I'm not sure what the problem here is. HGB are 50 munitions tied behind end-tier tech. What sort of strongpoints are you afraid will be destroyed in this manner? By the time hammer tech has been researched UKF should have access to a wide variety of nondoctrinal smoke options on the field and yet this has not been seen to be a problem before...
22 Feb 2020, 20:26 PM
#26
avatar of HoverBacon

Posts: 206

I think he's probably worried about wehrmacht bunkers or other MG kill spots being obliterated by one squad, which is a fair point, almost? One squad one man (or 4/5 man) armying an MG could be a little cheesy as UKF's default infantry would kind of be an MG counter, a big part of many peoples wehrmacht playstyle. So I see where he's coming from, it could turn the Brit balance on it's head as the current status quo is that UK infantry can't really deal with MGs that well. But that's why they're adding the smoke barrage in the first place.

But tbh I agree with the general consensus, you have to go hammer to do this and it's gonna cost you 80 munitions to kill an MG bunker that cost 150mp and 60 munitions, imo that's a pretty fair trade. Although pyrotechnic tommies can already do this for 40 munitions with a flare and teching (or not teching) anvil, perhaps by letting another squad get pinned temporarily.

UKF Heavy gammons, should definitely not be made to snare... ever. Satchels is fine as Russia have no decent infantry AT options. UKF have weapon racks and a tommie squad with 2 piats and snaring gammon bomb could virtually one shot a panzer 4 or 2 volley a panther.
22 Feb 2020, 20:29 PM
#27
avatar of HoverBacon

Posts: 206

*places like the railway stations on Ettelbruck station or Lienne forest. stuff like that.
22 Feb 2020, 22:21 PM
#28
avatar of Hannibal
Senior Moderator Badge

Posts: 777

jump backJump back to quoted post22 Feb 2020, 16:21 PMVipper

Actually HGB used to be a snare only and for apparent reason Relic decided to add the demolition property, probably because they did not want to give a homing AT weapon at the time.

Since now Relic has decided that UKF should have an AT snare they is little not to make it homing also and to remove stun.

IS have no reason to have access to demolition weapon.


Considering only infantry units I agree. IS already have decent utility.

In a faction design however HGB can act as an anti garrison/structure tool for the late game. UKF only has the base arty that has to act both as area denial and anti structure. Most of the other factions have at least two forms of artillery, usually mortars and rockets.
The HGB could act as a "faction flavor" compensation for not having mobile arty. Otherwise you'd always need your base howitzers to fire at a bunker.

All in all I think the issue - if there is any - will not be huge. I don't see why we should be blindly "patching" a mechanic, since this is by far not guaranteed to cause issues.
22 Feb 2020, 23:19 PM
#29
avatar of Chocoboknight88

Posts: 392

I do agree that Infantry Sections are going to be extremely powerful as a result of this combo but I don't think we should change the Heavy Gammon Bomb in any way. We could however, make the new Smoke Barrage work like a Victor Target type ability where a Mortar Pit is required on the field to use it. Putting in a counterable extra cost to that combo.

Not to mention the fact they currently don't need a Mortar Pit for smoke, thanks to the new Pyrotechnics, kinda makes the Creeping Smoke Barrage a little redundant. With a Victor Target type requirement, you are still encouraged to build Mortar Pits.
22 Feb 2020, 23:31 PM
#30
avatar of EtherealDragon

Posts: 1501 | Subs: 1

Just lock out gammon bombs from pyrotechnics sections or remove gammon bombs from hammer and replace it with something else.


I think removing them from pyrosections (or shared cooldown with smoke) is the simplest solution here. Otherwise this doesn't really change much from status quo where you can easily build a mortar pit and smoke half the map with it's range and do the same thing. Same thing with Commando smoke raid and it's not like heavy gammon bomb cheese is a thing right now aside from highly ranked players using them against T4 trucks where we're talking 3 sections, 150 munitions and coordination with smoke. It's not easy to pull off and pyro smoke at best makes this slightly easier at the cost of additional munitions. Though I think it would be cool if they changed HGB to be a section upgrade and buffed it to be like a AT satchel or otherwise changed it to make it less severely situational and utterly useless as a snare as intended. Otherwise Axis players can just you know... not leave bunkers and trucks left alone to be assaulted with HGB.
23 Feb 2020, 00:35 AM
#31
avatar of Katitof

Posts: 14566 | Subs: 7

jump backJump back to quoted post22 Feb 2020, 18:20 PMVipper

If it is demolition weapon move to Ro.En.

Sappers wouldn't be using IMPROVISED EXPLOSIVES, which gammon bombs are, because they would be provided and equipped with regular, specialized ones.
Regular infantry would on the other hand.
Gammon bombs are fitting both thematically and historically on tommies.

Also, you still didn't provided a singular non staged replay where that would be an issue.
If its such a problem, surely you wouldn't have slightest trouble pulling it off?
23 Feb 2020, 00:55 AM
#32
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 7615 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post23 Feb 2020, 00:35 AMKatitof

Sappers wouldn't be using IMPROVISED EXPLOSIVES, which gammon bombs are, because they would be provided and equipped with regular, specialized ones.

As usual you are mistaken, gammon bombs are not "improvised" explosives, they where designed by Capt. R. S. Gammon and manufactured in factories.

Gammon bombs where usually filled with plastic explosives a substance that Sappers where trained to use and far more probable to have access to.
jump backJump back to quoted post23 Feb 2020, 00:35 AMKatitof

Regular infantry would on the other hand.
Gammon bombs are fitting both thematically and historically on tommies.

And once more you are mistaken regular UKF infatry did not use gammon bomb. Gammon bomb where used by SAS (commandos/paratroopers), Home guard and Partisans.

And in game the weapon was original designed to be an AT grenade.
jump backJump back to quoted post23 Feb 2020, 00:35 AMKatitof

Also, you still didn't provided a singular non staged replay where that would be an issue.
If its such a problem, surely you wouldn't have slightest trouble pulling it off?

Feel free to provide replays yourself for all your claims.
23 Feb 2020, 01:10 AM
#33
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 7615 | Subs: 1



Considering only infantry units I agree. IS already have decent utility.

In a faction design however HGB can act as an anti garrison/structure tool for the late game. UKF only has the base arty that has to act both as area denial and anti structure. Most of the other factions have at least two forms of artillery, usually mortars and rockets.
The HGB could act as a "faction flavor" compensation for not having mobile arty. Otherwise you'd always need your base howitzers to fire at a bunker.

All in all I think the issue - if there is any - will not be huge. I don't see why we should be blindly "patching" a mechanic, since this is by far not guaranteed to cause issues.

If the weapon is meant to be "anti garrison/structure tool" remove the stun to vehicle and move it Ro.E.

Sections already have grenades and it will increase the utility of Ro.E. It will also prevent the one unit smoke explosive combo.

If it is meant to be an AT weapon make it homing and revert the changes to damage/AOE profile (I would also replace the stun with weapon disable to avoid stun lock).

The whole point of the winter preview is to avoid "blindly "patching" a mechanic", so make the change in preview and see how it goes.
23 Feb 2020, 10:20 AM
#34
avatar of Hannibal
Senior Moderator Badge

Posts: 777

jump backJump back to quoted post23 Feb 2020, 01:10 AMVipper

If the weapon is meant to be "anti garrison/structure tool" remove the stun to vehicle and move it Ro.E.

Sections already have grenades and it will increase the utility of Ro.E. It will also prevent the one unit smoke explosive combo.

If it is meant to be an AT weapon make it homing and revert the changes to damage/AOE profile (I would also replace the stun with weapon disable to avoid stun lock).

The whole point of the winter preview is to avoid "blindly "patching" a mechanic", so make the change in preview and see how it goes.

I agree with the argumentation, but still two points:
(I always assumed that the HGB is the same as or at least comparable to the satchel of Penals stat wise, but maybe I'm wrong)
- Stun on vehicles does not need to go. If enemy infantry comes so close to your vehicle and you park it on such a long fuse, it deserves some punishment
- If we put it on RE, only the anti garrison makes sense. Otherwise REs would have normal AT (80 dmg) grenade and the HGB (300 dmg?). I thought the AT satchel was designed for heavy damage, but a medium still needs 3 shots afterwards? REs would become a squad that could damage a vehicle past the 320 dmg mark. Also not sure if this could cause issues with PIATs, but on the other hand PIATs really need more play.
23 Feb 2020, 10:40 AM
#35
avatar of Sander93

Posts: 2194 | Subs: 6

jump backJump back to quoted post22 Feb 2020, 11:33 AMVipper
Suggestion:
1) Redesign HGB as a homing AT weapon. Remove stun (and engine damage from this type of weapons).


How would this be a better alternative in any way? Either it'd still deal satchel damage which means with 3-4 IS on the field Axis tanks would never be able to dive or it'd be a regular AT nade with no engine damage which would be mostly pointless?
23 Feb 2020, 10:49 AM
#36
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 7615 | Subs: 1



How would this be a better alternative in any way? Either it'd still deal satchel damage which means with 3-4 IS on the field Axis tanks would never be able to dive or it'd be a regular AT nade with no engine damage which would be mostly pointless?


Currently HGB is a dual purpose weapons. It is both a "anti garrison/structure tool" and an AT snare with very limited use due to difficulty landing on enemy vehicles. That weapon should simply not be available to mainline infatry especial with the addition of smoke to mainline infantry.

If it revert to its old design of an AT exclusive weapon:
First it should become homing since currently it is very difficult to use vs moving vehicles

Then it should have its stun replaced by with other effect like weapon disable/blind/turret/gunner injured/driver injured/loader injured so that does lead to stun-lock.

Finally its damage and AOE change could be revert to the original values so that vehicle does not move on the IS to blow them

Now IS have access to weapon that can be used as a deterrent diving.

I can also replace the AT grenade of the TH. IS.
23 Feb 2020, 10:56 AM
#37
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 7615 | Subs: 1


I agree with the argumentation, but still two points:
(I always assumed that the HGB is the same as or at least comparable to the satchel of Penals stat wise, but maybe I'm wrong)

It has longer range and it can stun vehicles


- Stun on vehicles does not need to go. If enemy infantry comes so close to your vehicle and you park it on such a long fuse, it deserves some punishment

Stun is simply OP if it lands and it if it becomes homing it will land. Two infatry section can stun lock a vehicle.


- If we put it on RE, only the anti garrison makes sense. Otherwise REs would have normal AT (80 dmg) grenade and the HGB (300 dmg?). I thought the AT satchel was designed for heavy damage, but a medium still needs 3 shots afterwards? REs would become a squad that could damage a vehicle past the 320 dmg mark. Also not sure if this could cause issues with PIATs, but on the other hand PIATs really need more play.

If it is not homing and does not stun vehicles it if fine for Ro.E.
23 Feb 2020, 11:16 AM
#38
avatar of Sander93

Posts: 2194 | Subs: 6

jump backJump back to quoted post23 Feb 2020, 10:49 AMVipper
If it revert to its old design of an AT exclusive weapon:
First it should become homing since currently it is very difficult to use vs moving vehicles

Then it should have its stun replaced by with other effect like weapon disable/blind/turret/gunner injured/driver injured/loader injured so that does lead to stun-lock.

Finally its damage and AOE change could be revert to the original values so that vehicle does not move on the IS to blow them

Now IS have access to weapon that can be used as a deterrent diving.


I understand your suggestion but my point is that turning it into a homing AT satchel that can be used by the standard amount of 3-4 Infantry Sections running around (meaning Axis tanks would almost never be able to dive after anything without getting hit for 300 damage in the progress) would definitely be worse than the current occasional case of them being used to kill a bunker.
23 Feb 2020, 11:19 AM
#39
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 7615 | Subs: 1



I understand your suggestion but my point is that turning it into a homing AT satchel that can be used by the standard amount of 3-4 Infantry Sections is definitely worse than the current occasional case of them being used to kill a bunker.

It is my opinion that weapon should be single purpose and not dual...

If it is "anti garrison/structure tool" remove stun and move it Ro.E. because there is little reason for a smoke and a "anti garrison/structure tool" combo on IS.

If it is AT make homing.
In the worse scenario make it Ro.E. available only, replacing the AT grenade offering extra range or damage.
23 Feb 2020, 11:27 AM
#40
avatar of Hannibal
Senior Moderator Badge

Posts: 777

jump backJump back to quoted post23 Feb 2020, 10:56 AMVipper

It has longer range and it can stun vehicles


Stun is simply OP if it lands and it if it becomes homing it will land. Two infatry section can stun lock a vehicle.


If it is not homing and does not stun vehicles it if fine for Ro.E.


I disagree with the stun.
By all means, the HBG is a normal satchel (just tested it, does the same amount of damage, same fuse, same range). The HGB costs 5 mun more though.

A normal satchel does engine damage if the vehicle does not drive away, the HGB only does a stun. So actually you pay more for the HGB and get less, at least AT wise. Don't know about the exact AoE damage profile, but I assume they're very similar too. And the Penal satchel does NOT cause gameplay/balance issues.

I don't see why this topic should be an issue at all. The only combination might be smoke + HGB, but that is probably a smaller issue that can go live. Balance team has more important things to sort out at the moment than this, so the time can be used elsewhere way better than on this single combination where at least I am not even sure if it will cause problems at all.
1 user is browsing this thread: 1 guest
Elite Invitational Tournament 3 Semi+ Finals

Ladders Top 10

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

Replay highlight

VS
  • Soviets flag T.R. TheSeekingGuy
  • Soviets flag T.R. Opportunity Cost
  • Oberkommando West flag VonAsten
  • Oberkommando West flag Jove
uploaded by Seeking

Board Info

68 users are online: 7 members and 61 guests
KiwiBirb, Farlon, KoRneY, pompey606, thedarkarmadillo, BlueKnight, Fire and Terror
179 posts in the last 24h
1076 posts in the last week
4387 posts in the last month
Registered members: 18658
Welcome our newest member, 7adriane6123fo4
Most online: 1221 users on 25 Feb 2020, 12:03 PM