Login

russian armor

Reworking 'Brace'

4 Jun 2020, 20:10 PM
#41
avatar of Doomlord52

Posts: 957

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...


This is also a good point.

Right now, brace is free with nearly zero downsides (stops firing and receiving repairs). Considering the amount of power (i.e. damage reduction) it gives, it should really have some sort of downside; be it a resource cost to use, or requiring a garrisoned squad to unlock.
4 Jun 2020, 20:26 PM
#42
avatar of Hannibal
Senior Moderator Badge

Posts: 2837 | Subs: 2


...or requiring a garrisoned squad to unlock.

I suppose this will just lead to huge bugs or exploits. Do you just have to jump a squad in, click Brace and can jump out? Or is the squad garrisoned then. Does brace still have a timer or can you keep it this way as long as a squad is in there? Can the squad fire out of the emplacement?

I am not sure this is such a great thing, although it might be interesting.
4 Jun 2020, 20:27 PM
#43
avatar of Sander93

Posts: 3164 | Subs: 7

It seems like the 'easy' answer is to give the Stuka 5 pen (not 50, as someone else suggested).

Not really, because that would let it reliably deal up to 600 damage (900 if we didn't remove the target table damage multiplier) to a mortar pit in a single max range barrage (and up to 800/1200 to a 17 Pounder), which is significantly more than the Panzerwerfer, which deals about 300-400 damage with good RNG scatter firing from medium range. Even if the damage multiplier was removed that would make it way too good against emplacements.


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.

It can fire over anything that isn't a two story building or a big patch of the tallest trees (that acts as a shot blocker). That's adequate for most mortar pit positions on 2v2 maps because tall garrisons or the tall tree shot blockers are very rare in those maps. In 3v3 and 4v4 mortar pits / emplacements aren't really an issue because force concentration or using doctrinal counters (incendiary barrages) is much easier and the maps are usually big enough to avoid it and go fight somewhere else anyway.
4 Jun 2020, 20:41 PM
#44
avatar of Doomlord52

Posts: 957

I suppose this will just lead to huge bugs or exploits. Do you just have to jump a squad in, click Brace and can jump out? Or is the squad garrisoned then. Does brace still have a timer or can you keep it this way as long as a squad is in there? Can the squad fire out of the emplacement?

I am not sure this is such a great thing, although it might be interesting.


The way I would implement it is as follows (provided it's technically possible).

The brace action keeps its current cooldown timer/stats.
The brace action requires a squad garrisoned to use, similar to the bofor's barrage.
Clicking 'brace' disabled the 'leave garrison' action for the duration of the ability.
If the structure is destroyed, damage is applied as it is with destroyed bunkers/trenches/vehicles.

The first two points are identical to the Bofor's barrage, and I'm not aware of any exploits there. Similarly, the fourth point is also currently in the game.

The only issue is with the third point, which I'm not entirely sure is possible to implement.

I'm sure this idea isn't perfect, but I think it could be a good starting point.

Not really, because that would let it reliably deal 600 damage from max to a mortar pit in a single barrage which is significantly more than the Panzerwerfer, which deals about 300-400 damage on a good barrage from medium range.


In that case, couldn't the Stuka be given a specific damage table entry for UKF emplacements - something like 0.67x multiplier? This would result in a rocket consistently doing 402 damage on direct hit - and I don't see a way to get more than 2 rockets from single stuka to hit directly.

Since there are only 3 main emplacements, I would think this shouldn't be hard to implement, from a 'work done' perspective.

/edit

I wasn't aware of the existing damage-table entries that you added to your post. While this does change things, couldn't they also be adjusted to allow for a consistent 400 damage per hit?

It can fire over anything that isn't a two story building or a big patch of the tallest trees (that acts as a shot blocker). That's adequate for most mortar pit positions on 2v2 maps because tall garrisons or the tall tree shot blockers are very rare in those maps.


I don't entirely agree with this. On many maps there are 2 story+ buildings that a mortar pit is quite effective behind. We also need to consider 3v3 and 4v4 maps, which have many buildings like this; the worst (I can think of) being City 17's North-East side.

/edit

You also added some points about 3v3 and 4v4. While these are valid, it's still necessary to bring them up specifically in the "brummbar vs. Mortar pit" discussion. I'd also argue that firestorm is an awful pick for OKW in larger team-games.

Additionally, I'd still say that many 1v1 and 2v2 maps do have these shot-blockers. While they don't block shots from such a large variety of directions (compared to 3v3/4v4), they are still present, and block shots from many angles.
4 Jun 2020, 20:53 PM
#45
avatar of Sander93

Posts: 3164 | Subs: 7

In that case, couldn't the Stuka be given a specific damage table entry for UKF emplacements - something like 0.67x multiplier?


It could, but the game is already bad at communicating things to players and hidden modifiers should be avoided as much as possible. Anyway, the original point was that the Stuka in its current state is already very good against infantry and support weapons and even vehicles (as long as it doesn't get direct hits) and it's considered to be one of the best rocket arties - making it good against emplacements as well would simply make it become overwhelming.

The only thing that could be done imo is reworking it to be more like the Panzerwerfer (rockets get lower damage but deal AOE suppression) which would make it a lot fairer against infantry and team weapons (and giving OKW a proper anti-blob tool) and then moving the incendiary barrage to vet 0 or vet 1 and rework that into a garrison and emplacements counter. But those changes would be so significant that they likely will never happen at this point.
4 Jun 2020, 21:07 PM
#46
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13148 | Subs: 1



It could, but the game is already bad at communicating things to players and hidden modifiers should be avoided as much as possible. Anyway, the original point was that the Stuka in its current state is already very good against infantry and support weapons and even vehicles (as long as it doesn't get direct hits) and it's considered to be one of the best rocket arties - making it good against emplacements as well would simply make it become overwhelming.

The only thing that could be done imo is reworking it to be more like the Panzerwerfer (rockets get lower damage but deal AOE suppression) which would make it a lot fairer against infantry and team weapons (and giving OKW a proper anti-blob tool) and then moving the incendiary barrage to vet 0 or vet 1 and rework that into a garrison and emplacements counter. But those changes would be so significant that they likely will never happen at this point.

Having 0 penetration and 200 AOE penetration is simply silly and is probably due to an over sight.
It makes the unit perform inconsistently.

It should be fixed.

It is a simply as that.
4 Jun 2020, 21:16 PM
#47
avatar of Doomlord52

Posts: 957

It could, but the game is already bad at communicating things to players and hidden modifiers should be avoided as much as possible. Anyway, the original point was that the Stuka in its current state is already very good against infantry and support weapons and even vehicles (as long as it doesn't get direct hits) and it's considered to be one of the best rocket arties - making it good against emplacements as well would simply make it become overwhelming.


I don't entirely agree with this. Right now, the Stuka already has hidden multipliers, and additionally, does less damage when missing than on a direct hit. I'd argue that correcting that strange behavior is worth modifying the already existing hidden values, as the overall "hidden mechanic" count goes from 2 to 1.

As for it being "overwhelming", this is entirely possible, but I would think base stat changes are still possible.

The only thing that could be done imo is reworking it to be more like the Panzerwerfer (rockets get lower damage but deal AOE suppression) which would make it a lot fairer against infantry and team weapons (and giving OKW a proper anti-blob tool) and then moving the incendiary barrage to vet 0 or vet 1 and rework that into a garrison and emplacements counter. But those changes would be so significant that they likely will never happen at this point.


I know I've asked this before, but would it be possible to get a description (even a vague one) of what is and isn't possible? There are many users making interesting and valid suggestions, but it's hard to know if they're worth discussing since (as far as I am aware) the community has no idea which are possible to implement, and which aren't.

5 Jun 2020, 23:06 PM
#48
avatar of general_gawain

Posts: 905

The origin error was made with the introduction of a commander which focuses on emplacements. Either emplacements are op with him (we all saw him overperforming in the past) or are up without him... or as a third option the commander has to be completely useless, so that there is no doctrinal impact anymore.

Either way atm emplacements with the exception of 17pdr are so easily countered, that Imo every discussion of walking stukka doing more or less damage doesn't change anything about their bad game performance at all. Since I play 2vs2 and up mainly there is always double ISG around to rek any brit emplacement. As OKW I always hope for UKF investing a lot of ressources into emplacements, brace only prolongs the inevitable. As UKF I stopped building pits/bofors a long time ago. Emplacements are only good versus players who use wrong abilities/units and fail by doing so (High damage single shot attacks when brace is ready to kick in? Really?).

Just remove pit/bofors and add mobile mortar and land matress non-doc (land-matress gets in the place of bofors side-tech with adjusted fuel cost for side-tech). That way you would solve a lot of problems at different skill levels.

Edit: And if you really want to keep bofors/pit in the game for the sake of diversity: Just put them as doctrinal units in the emplacement commander and take away the automatic repair and the fortify option to compensate for having mobile mortar and land-matress in that commander non-doc too.
25 Jun 2020, 04:04 AM
#49
avatar of Kurobane

Posts: 637

Personally I would rather see a non doc mortar added to T2 and the mortar pit moved to Company Command Post as the "late" game artillery option (Mortar Pit would cost fuel, no auto fire - much stronger barrage with more range)

Could even build a Third upgrade around the idea in addition to Hammer/Anvil (Like Sword or whatever name would fit with the theme)
1 user is browsing this thread: 1 guest

Livestreams

Germany 5
Netherlands 1
United States 0

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

228 users are online: 1 member and 227 guests
GoforGiantsV3
8 posts in the last 24h
132 posts in the last week
797 posts in the last month
Registered members: 34886
Welcome our newest member, Deroyertiki
Most online: 1221 users on 25 Feb 2020, 12:03 PM