Login

russian armor

Reworking 'Brace'

3 Jun 2020, 13:44 PM
#21
avatar of Sander93

Posts: 3164 | Subs: 7

Perhaps there is a weapons stat (not listed on coh2db) that allows AOE to ignore armor or not.


So looks like I was wrong, and partially right.

I had a look in the editor. It turns out that AOE does not share the base penetration stat but has its own AOE penetration stats. It seems that for most weapons, AOE penetration is the same as the base penetration. For the Stuka rockets however, the AOE penetration is very high which is why near misses can deal major damage to tanks (vehicles) and emplacements while direct hits only deal a small amount of deflection damage.



So to correct myself: AOE does not ignore armor, but specifically the Stuka's AOE ignores the armor of the Mortar Pit and most vehicles because it has very high AOE penetration values. While direct hits only deal deflection damage because it has 0/0/0 regular penetration.
3 Jun 2020, 13:59 PM
#22
avatar of Lago

Posts: 3260

The problem with the UKF emplacements is fundamental to their design: they're direct-fire emplacements you're not meant to lose.

SimCity is the inevitable, unavoidable result of that sort of design being viable.

UKF's emplacements could be salvaged, but it'd require an overhaul that's likely beyond the scope of the current balance patches.
3 Jun 2020, 14:03 PM
#23
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 12978 | Subs: 1


Mortars seem to be able to deal damage to tanks with AOE damage from near misses. Same for tank gun AOE being able to cause small amounts of damage on near misses.

Here's a near miss (first and only shot) that dealt damage to a Sherman:


The Stuka deals heavy damage (up to 200) to vehicles on near misses, which would be impossible if AOE went through a penetration check too. There's no other way to explain this as far as I know.

AOE penetration definitely exits, but there must be another mechanism but it simply does not damage all the time ignoring armor.



Because the Stuka is already very good as is and doesn't need any buffs without reworking it, but that'd likely be too much of an undertaking at this point.

well then start with increasing penetration to 5 and remove the extra damage to emplacements if you have to. That would probably make the unit more consistent vs emplacements.


...
So to correct myself: AOE does not ignore armor, but specifically the Stuka's AOE ignores the armor of the Mortar Pit and most vehicles because it has very high AOE penetration values. While direct hits only deal deflection damage because it has 0/0/0 regular penetration.

Well the bring these penetrations closer there is very little reason for such a huge difference.
3 Jun 2020, 15:51 PM
#24
avatar of ullumulu

Posts: 2241

Explain why only brits emplacements have this alien technology... And even doc similar units like pak43 has no brace... It is static too. And need a doc. Or the flak emplacement... Why no brace
3 Jun 2020, 17:10 PM
#25
avatar of SgtJonson

Posts: 143

With what i read here I´d say if Stuka get atleast some penetration it would more likely be "working as intended" afterwards.

Topic:

"Alien technology"... heh, yeah totally agree.

I´m not sure about the cooldown of the ability, but maybe increase the CD so that arty or diving units have more chances of hitting the emplacement unprepared.
I think it would enable interesting matches, where players fake an assault to have their enemy activate brace and push right afterwards.
3 Jun 2020, 18:07 PM
#26
avatar of Grim

Posts: 1025

Explain why only brits emplacements have this alien technology... And even doc similar units like pak43 has no brace... It is static too. And need a doc. Or the flak emplacement... Why no brace


Why can pak43 shoot through buildings without an ability?

etc etc

Different factions have different benefits and drawbacks.
3 Jun 2020, 19:00 PM
#27
avatar of elchino7
Senior Moderator Badge

Posts: 8154 | Subs: 2



So looks like I was wrong, and partially right.

I had a look in the editor. It turns out that AOE does not share the base penetration stat but has its own AOE penetration stats. It seems that for most weapons, AOE penetration is the same as the base penetration. For the Stuka rockets however, the AOE penetration is very high which is why near misses can deal major damage to tanks (vehicles) and emplacements while direct hits only deal a small amount of deflection damage.



So to correct myself: AOE does not ignore armor, but specifically the Stuka's AOE ignores the armor of the Mortar Pit and most vehicles because it has very high AOE penetration values. While direct hits only deal deflection damage because it has 0/0/0 regular penetration.


I guess it's time to test how to effectively use the Stuka to kill a mortar pit.
MMX
4 Jun 2020, 04:02 AM
#28
avatar of MMX

Posts: 989 | Subs: 1



So looks like I was wrong, and partially right.

I had a look in the editor. It turns out that AOE does not share the base penetration stat but has its own AOE penetration stats. It seems that for most weapons, AOE penetration is the same as the base penetration. For the Stuka rockets however, the AOE penetration is very high which is why near misses can deal major damage to tanks (vehicles) and emplacements while direct hits only deal a small amount of deflection damage.



So to correct myself: AOE does not ignore armor, but specifically the Stuka's AOE ignores the armor of the Mortar Pit and most vehicles because it has very high AOE penetration values. While direct hits only deal deflection damage because it has 0/0/0 regular penetration.


this is very odd indeed. iirc the vast majority of similar sized arty projectiles have guaranteed pen on direct hit (i.e 1,000 pen) and lower aoe penetration instead. kind of strange that the stuka has no chance to deal full damage if it connects directly - which is clearly a drawback against emplacements and other targets with large hitboxes.
anyone knows if this has always been like this or, if not, the motivation behind the change?
4 Jun 2020, 05:31 AM
#29
avatar of Sander93

Posts: 3164 | Subs: 7

jump backJump back to quoted post4 Jun 2020, 04:02 AMMMX
iirc the vast majority of similar sized arty projectiles have guaranteed pen on direct hit (i.e 1,000 pen) and lower aoe penetration instead.


From what I saw in the editor, every piece of artillery has the same AOE penetration values as the base penetration values, both of which are 1000/1000/1000 for howitzers and 50/50/50 for rocket artillery (and 35/35/35 for mortars). The Stuka seems to be the only one that has something weird going on with its penetration values.
4 Jun 2020, 09:00 AM
#30
avatar of Hannibal
Senior Moderator Badge

Posts: 2743 | Subs: 2

Two years ago the Stuka did get a nerf vs buildings to make it less wipey, I think it also nerfed it against emplacements. The reason was also that it is not meant to be an anti structure unit.
Still I think Stuka should be more consistent, either by increasing penetration and nerfing the near damage slightly, or by lowering penetration and just always add deflection damage.

Back to topic though:
I think brace is a very bland ability. You get attacked, you click the button, the attacking player has to sustain the attack long enough for brace to enter cool down. If the UKF player does not break, then everything is reset for the next attack without further input until ou click the button again. It's more of a micro/reaction mini game with relatively few things to consider because everything is for free and getting the status quo requires no input and also not a very long waiting time.
My suggestion (#4) makes it way more interactive. More micro, higher cost but also more reward. On the other hand a barely supported emplacement gets destroyed quickly. Of course there will be issues to iron out, but one of the core designs of UKF is either gone or very uninteresting to play.
4 Jun 2020, 09:40 AM
#31
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 12978 | Subs: 1

Two years ago the Stuka did get a nerf vs buildings to make it less wipey, I think it also nerfed it against emplacements. The reason was also that it is not meant to be an anti structure unit.
....


Actually it has buff vs emplacements, the nerf is only vs ambient and team weapons.

251 Wurferman Stuka
The Stuka is being put in line with other rocket artillery pieces by lowering its health and being less capable of outright destroying structures and teams weapons with a single volley of rockets.

50% damage penalty against team weapons; only affects the gun itself
50% damage penalty against ambient buildings; only affects the structure itself


-----
Added bonus damage against emplacment for walking stuka


Point here that the base stat of the unit are messed.

It should never have 0 penetration (its probably an oversight and not intended) and the causes inconstant performance vs emplacement. I do not even now any other weapon with 0 penetration.
4 Jun 2020, 15:12 PM
#32
avatar of elchino7
Senior Moderator Badge

Posts: 8154 | Subs: 2

Because the Stuka is already very good as is and doesn't really need any buffs without reworking it, but that'd likely be too much of an undertaking at this point.


But having the same AoE pen profile as other rocket artillery should be fine right?


Tried different angles and setups and couldn't find a way to reliable hit with only AoE the mortar pits. Which makes, as you mention, OKW teching be really rigid in trying to deal with them once you go mechanized.

I think at most you are hitting with 2 rockets a single mortar pit. A PW as you mention is way more effective even at max range barrage.

This situation is strange, cause i don't remember this to be the case before.
4 Jun 2020, 17:19 PM
#33
avatar of Colonel0tto
Donator 11

Posts: 145

Might be a bit off topic, but does the current pen profile of the Stuka make it disproportionately bad against armoured infantry (i.e. shock troops) as well?
4 Jun 2020, 17:31 PM
#34
avatar of Hannibal
Senior Moderator Badge

Posts: 2743 | Subs: 2

Might be a bit off topic, but does the current pen profile of the Stuka make it disproportionately bad against armoured infantry (i.e. shock troops) as well?

All infantry is "armored", meaning has a value of 1. Shocks have 1,5, but since the Stuka has a penetration of zero it would always deflect.

But given that the chance to hit the model is either very small or maybe even zero (depending on how the projectiles are set up), there is no difference for infantry.
4 Jun 2020, 17:36 PM
#35
avatar of Descolata

Posts: 486

It would be... if the armored troops are directly hit. That would be funny to watch. Shocks catching Stuka rounds.

For penetration, figure out which way to change it. Either normalize on howitzers, with 1000 pen and huge pen on AoE, or normalize on rockets, with 50 pen, and moderate AoE damage. SZF is really a mobile, fast firing howitzer, but all that pen would make it even more a "kill everything"...
MMX
4 Jun 2020, 17:37 PM
#36
avatar of MMX

Posts: 989 | Subs: 1

Might be a bit off topic, but does the current pen profile of the Stuka make it disproportionately bad against armoured infantry (i.e. shock troops) as well?


i don't think so. afaik artillery projectiles behave like ballistic projectiles in the sense that they can't 'connect' with the hitbox of infantry. and since there is no accuracy roll that could otherwise result in a natural hit they can't score a direct hit but only deal aoe damage. hence, aoe penetration will be in effect at all times so the rockets will always deal full damage to infantry.
now i could be wrong of course and since i can't check it myself atm better take this with a grain of salt.
4 Jun 2020, 18:08 PM
#37
avatar of gunther09
Donator 22

Posts: 489

I guess brace is not experienced equally across the ranks. That makes it difficult.
For a new player one Bofors can be a huge pain.
For an experienced player it is not so much trouble.

I love it as it is. It makes the game more emotional.
There is hate when facing emplacements as they are.
There is struggle to keep them alive.
And there is pain an relief when they fade.
-->awesome!
4 Jun 2020, 18:39 PM
#38
avatar of Doomlord52

Posts: 953

jump backJump back to quoted post3 Jun 2020, 10:01 AMVipper
On the other hand the "two shot" kill from the mortar pit should be remove either by changing the timing of the mortar firing or by changing one mortar to barrage and the other auto-fire.


This seriously needs to be fixed. Thanks to horrible spacing, its entirely possible for a mortar to insta-wipe entire squads (OST 4-man squads) with literally zero reaction time for Axis, and with zero user input from the UKF player - it's insane.

It needs to be changed so that one fires, and half-way through the reload the other mortar fires. This ensures round spacing, gives Axis some time to react, and prevents 'zero-input' squad wipes.

The biggest problem is that OKW tech isn't very flexible. They usually need Mechanized, but back-teching to Battlegroup to get an ISG or two to counter the mortar pit is too expensive and time consuming. Ostheer can relatively comfortably avoid it and go for T4 and counter with a Brummbar or a Panzerwerfer (which can both shoot over obstacles and deal significant damage).

On top of that a major issue is that the Stuka is consistently ineffective against emplacements because its rockets have 0 penetration, which means that when directly hitting the 5 armor Mortar Pit they will "bounce" and cause only a measly 40 deflection damage (maybe 60 because of the target table but I'm not sure if the 1.5 multiplier applies to deflection damage) rather than the full 200 damage (it has the same issue against units like the Ambulance). This makes it noticeable worse against emplacements than the Panzerwerfer.


Because the Stuka is already very good as is and doesn't really need any buffs without reworking it, but that'd likely be too much of an undertaking at this point.


It seems like the 'easy' answer is to give the Stuka 5 pen (not 50, as someone else suggested). This would essentially only change its interaction with UKF emplacements, while leaving everything else the same. Its very unlikely that the "direct hit does less than a miss" nature is the intended design.

Alternatively, as you pointed out, OKW's tech is inflexible; maybe this should be addressed. The main issue, from what I can tell, is that going Med-truck leaves you too open to LVs, whereas going Mech leaves you without any strong sustained indirect fire. As LVs are essentially a given in any high-level match, this forces OKW into going Mech first, every time.

One solution could be to give the Flak-HT an "AP Round" toggle (or timed ability) that gives it, for example, 60 pen - but zero splash damage. Due to the nature of the Flak-HT, it couldn't chase vehicles, but it could hold them off quite effectively. This could make Med viable against UKF in team-games, while keeping Mech unchanged. As a result, going med-first in these UKF/Sov match-ups would be viable, and emplacements less dominant.

Lastly, I wanted to point out that the Brummbar is not a viable counter for emplacements behind shot-blockers. Its arc is fairly low, and will often hit either the structure or rubble when firing over it.
4 Jun 2020, 18:46 PM
#39
avatar of achpawel

Posts: 1351



+1 Good ideas
4 Jun 2020, 19:49 PM
#40
avatar of distrofio

Posts: 2358

I really like OP objective and the 4th idea aswell.
I know its going to be hard to accept at the begining but it might make the game better for everyone and thus be accepted as a positive change.

If brace were unlocked either by the RE garrison inside the emplacements or maybe can only be used if the empacement has half HP left...
1 user is browsing this thread: 1 guest
GCS3: Quarter Finals

Ladders Top 10

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

Replay highlight

VS
  • Oberkommando West flag Oziligath
  • The British Forces flag T.R. Sidewinder
uploaded by Oziligath

Board Info

87 users are online: 2 members and 85 guests
Kurobane, Vipper
20 posts in the last 24h
237 posts in the last week
1013 posts in the last month
Registered members: 31954
Welcome our newest member, morris_john_92
Most online: 1221 users on 25 Feb 2020, 12:03 PM