Login

russian armor

Is the WC 51 overperforming ?

PAGES (8)down
6 Aug 2020, 12:15 PM
#41
avatar of JohnSmith

Posts: 1273



So first I do agree that "micro" light vehicles have some... interesting characteristics, the only exception being perhaps the UC since its received the most recent reworks.



It's easier to just refer to the unit itself.

Because micro light vehicles; that's confusing for the sake of confusing and adds another layer of characteristics which is not needed for the game or discussions. There is no need to attempt to categorise the light vehicles into smaller subsets. It'll go crazy and we'd end up with a category micro-light but player-micro-heavy vehicles doctorinal transport self-repair category and even more and as you cited some exceptions too. Also a WC51 cannot be categorised with an M20 or a 222. To make things worse, we could even start categorising infantry like Shocks and Pgrens with CQB and other CQC units.

I'd still love seeing some replays and casts of the WC 51 in 2on2+, I genuinely haven't seen ANY at all and I've been maining OST and playing against all possible variations of USF for years and I have not faced a single WC51 but once in the week the commander was released. The WC51 looks good in excel and on paper, but it has no niche and it is superseded by other doctrines.
6 Aug 2020, 13:23 PM
#42
avatar of A table

Posts: 249

jump backJump back to quoted post5 Aug 2020, 19:50 PMLago
The WC51 should lose artillery and Mark Target. It's an excellent early game unit that doesn't need these incongruous abilities bolted onto it in the name of 'late game relevance.'


Then it only has ''Step on it!'' in the lategame where it falls into almost complete uselessness. Atleast the Kubel has maphack to be usefull in the late game.

Changing arty to a mortar barrage/smoke barrage would vastly reduce the power but still give it something for the lategame. Not sure what to do with mark target, if it needs it.
6 Aug 2020, 15:38 PM
#43
avatar of Hannibal
Senior Moderator Badge

Posts: 3104 | Subs: 2



It's easier to just refer to the unit itself.

Because micro light vehicles; that's confusing for the sake of confusing and adds another layer of characteristics which is not needed for the game or discussions. There is no need to attempt to categorise the light vehicles into smaller subsets. It'll go crazy and we'd end up with a category micro-light but player-micro-heavy vehicles doctorinal transport self-repair category and even more and as you cited some exceptions too. Also a WC51 cannot be categorised with an M20 or a 222. To make things worse, we could even start categorising infantry like Shocks and Pgrens with CQB and other CQC units.


All definitions are arbitrary. Units are just grouped by common traits that many of the community deem to be important. Brushing a category of like this makes no sense, since the category can make sense in context. Obviously it does not mean that creating more categories is benefitial, but again, context matters.
Those "micro lights" or "super lights" share a quite important trait: They are decently countered by small arms fire. If this is deemed important for the discussion, categorizing them makes sense. A T70 would be closer to mediums in that regard than to the M3, UC or WC51. So talking about "LVs" could just create more confusion.
6 Aug 2020, 16:45 PM
#44
avatar of JohnSmith

Posts: 1273



All definitions are arbitrary. Units are just grouped by common traits that many of the community deem to be important. Brushing a category of like this makes no sense, since the category can make sense in context. Obviously it does not mean that creating more categories is benefitial, but again, context matters.
Those "micro lights" or "super lights" share a quite important trait: They are decently countered by small arms fire. If this is deemed important for the discussion, categorizing them makes sense. A T70 would be closer to mediums in that regard than to the M3, UC or WC51. So talking about "LVs" could just create more confusion.


True, true. A lot of is as you said, arbitrary, and picked out of thin air. I think it is easier and quicker to just keep to proper unit names, if and when they are needed to refer to. There are not that many, and it avoids the need to commonly define what falls under what and redefine after each patch. And we have had forum wars about where the Panther falls into (a tank hunter/tank destroyer/flanker) or if the Puma is a flanker or a sniper, or just a super cool unit which eats T34s and T70s from any distance.

You are totally right about the small arms fire aspect: it is that which properly distinguishes the units. But I still think that doctorinal units are allowed to stand out from the crowd with unique gameplay stuff.

Anyway, that's my offtopic rant.

On-topic: I faced a WC51 earlier! Probably people from this forum trying the commander out. It didn't do anything but it tried to flank my MG, which was cool. But it felt like the good old soviet M3 pioneer truck, same tactic to counter. Whoever that was, show yourself!
6 Aug 2020, 21:52 PM
#45
avatar of NorthFireZ

Posts: 211

Wc51 is cancerously strong in the right hands.

It's a UC that's cheaper, faster, in a strong commander, and self repair for nothing. There's no reason why it should continue to exist in the state that it's in.

So yeah man it's over performing but it's probably gonna get nerfed next patch and they should nerf it HARD
7 Aug 2020, 05:18 AM
#46
avatar of thedarkarmadillo

Posts: 5279

jump backJump back to quoted post5 Aug 2020, 13:53 PMCODGUY


200 MP + 45 munitions vs 210 MP. No, the WC51 is NOT more expensive than the Kubelwagon.

Except that it is. 45mu> 10mp.

The only direct and stable conversion we have left is the stuka resupply drop thing in close air and luftwaffe supply which can give 50 fuel or 150mu for 200mp which means that 50fu=200mp or 4 fu=1mp (1mp= 1/4fu and that 150mu=200mp or 3mu = 4mp (mp= 3/4mu)

So 45mu= ABOUT 34mp. Meaning 200mp+45mu = about 234mp which is greater than 210mp feel free to dispute the math, but much like me math doesn't give 2/3 of a fuck about your opinion on the matter as facts are facts and math isn't negotiable.
7 Aug 2020, 05:22 AM
#47
avatar of thedarkarmadillo

Posts: 5279



Then it only has ''Step on it!'' in the lategame where it falls into almost complete uselessness. Atleast the Kubel has maphack to be usefull in the late game.

Changing arty to a mortar barrage/smoke barrage would vastly reduce the power but still give it something for the lategame. Not sure what to do with mark target, if it needs it.

Could you make mark target a garrison bonus perhaps? The wc51 can mark a target if garrisoned with a squad? Be a shame to lose the mark target if only because it's the best designed "mark target" type ability around as it helps tame the RNG instead of doubling down on it. Makes the target weaker instead of the counters stronger.
7 Aug 2020, 05:48 AM
#48
avatar of Sumi

Posts: 132

jump backJump back to quoted post5 Aug 2020, 18:08 PMVipper

Let me try to explain this to you once more.

M4 HE has the best AI round than any medium tank. 76mm Sherman having inferior AI gun than M4 HE does not mean much.

Jackson is a TD and has better AT than all medium tank. 76mm Sherman have inferior AT gun than
Jackson does not mean much.



Valid points except your comparison scale. M4 HE has an AOE of 4 as compared to 2 of 76mm and that is a big ,a very big difference. Now since you mention that 76mm has better at it has a far pen of 165 with HVAP rounds so it is not supposed to penetrate(RNG Stuff) pz4 at max range (40) because the frontal armor of pz4 is 180. So here you have a 76mm which can barely go toe to toe with a 0 vet pz4(vet 2 increased armor) hence concluding it is not that great in AT department and lies in almost the same category as M4A3.

Jackons has 60 range 220 pen while the 76 mm has 40 range 165 pen again massive difference without adding the AP rounds of the Jackson. Jackson is a pure AT unit while the 76mm is an average AI unit.

This explains that 76mm does not even fill the shoes of any of these units and hence it is not used much.
7 Aug 2020, 05:59 AM
#49
avatar of thedarkarmadillo

Posts: 5279

jump backJump back to quoted post7 Aug 2020, 05:48 AMSumi


Valid points except your comparison scale. M4 HE has an AOE of 4 as compared to 2 of 76mm and that is a big ,a very big difference. Now since you mention that 76mm has better at it has a far pen of 165 with HVAP rounds so it is not supposed to penetrate(RNG Stuff) pz4 at max range (40) because the frontal armor of pz4 is 180. So here you have a 76mm which can barely go toe to toe with a 0 vet pz4(vet 2 increased armor) hence concluding it is not that great in AT department and lies in almost the same category as M4A3.

Jackons has 60 range 220 pen while the 76 mm has 40 range 165 pen again massive difference without adding the AP rounds of the Jackson. Jackson is a pure AT unit while the 76mm is an average AI unit.

This explains that 76mm does not even fill the shoes of any of these units and hence it is not used much.

What he's saying is comparing anything to the literal best of both classes means little in the means of comparison. One could say that the Puma has less armour than The JT and less AOE than a Sturmtiger and it would sound equally as stupid because these are as good at those traits as a unit can be. There isn't a usf vehicle with better AT than a Jackson and there isn't a medium tank with better AI than an M4 Sherman so any and all medium tanks will fall into the worse than both of those at their given roles category. Use comparable units not the top of the line.
7 Aug 2020, 08:35 AM
#50
avatar of A table

Posts: 249


Could you make mark target a garrison bonus perhaps? The wc51 can mark a target if garrisoned with a squad? Be a shame to lose the mark target if only because it's the best designed "mark target" type ability around as it helps tame the RNG instead of doubling down on it. Makes the target weaker instead of the counters stronger.


I'm no coder, so i am not sure how that would be coded w/o the ability glitching out(does it still apply once the garrisoned squad leaves the building, what debuffs does the squad get, etc).
7 Aug 2020, 09:50 AM
#51
avatar of Hannibal
Senior Moderator Badge

Posts: 3104 | Subs: 2


Except that it is. 45mu> 10mp.

The only direct and stable conversion we have left is the stuka resupply drop thing in close air and luftwaffe supply which can give 50 fuel or 150mu for 200mp which means that 50fu=200mp or 4 fu=1mp (1mp= 1/4fu and that 150mu=200mp or 3mu = 4mp (mp= 3/4mu)

So 45mu= ABOUT 34mp. Meaning 200mp+45mu = about 234mp which is greater than 210mp feel free to dispute the math, but much like me math doesn't give 2/3 of a fuck about your opinion on the matter as facts are facts and math isn't negotiable.


Not that I disagree with your point, but maybe check that math again because you switched numbers.
45 mun is 60 MP in that conversion making the WC51 260 MP.

We can also use other (rough) conversions, such as standard mines killing 2 models maximum (~50-60 MP). This gives an approximate conversion of 1 MP being worth 0,5-0,6 mun.


The WC51 is quite a niche unit though. As already said, I don't know if anyone at a semi serious level plays this unit outside of 1v1. Like most of those super light vehicles though, they need their space and they don't get much in team games. But maybe that's a plus for balancing it if we don't have to take care of larger game modes.
7 Aug 2020, 15:54 PM
#52
avatar of elchino7
Senior Moderator Badge

Posts: 8154 | Subs: 2


What he's saying is comparing anything to the literal best of both classes means little in the means of comparison. One could say that the Puma has less armour than The JT and less AOE than a Sturmtiger and it would sound equally as stupid because these are as good at those traits as a unit can be. There isn't a usf vehicle with better AT than a Jackson and there isn't a medium tank with better AI than an M4 Sherman so any and all medium tanks will fall into the worse than both of those at their given roles category. Use comparable units not the top of the line.


Check the math.

While i can't find any source, i remember that Relic valued mp/muni/fuel at a ratio of 1:3:5
It's not that resource conversions work that way, it might had been how xp value or something was assigned.
7 Aug 2020, 16:17 PM
#53
avatar of achpawel

Posts: 1351

A great discussion. A horribly overperforming unit for its cost with a crew for free and a bunch of abilities (some of which are for free). Are U guys seriously trying to prove it is a well designed unit? Just increase the price to start with. Seems like 300mp is probably still rather cheap for all you get.
7 Aug 2020, 17:08 PM
#54
avatar of CreativeName

Posts: 281

A unit that combines all advantages from the UC,m3 and kübel in one with even more abilities than all of them combined.
I dont understand this discussion, it is one of the most overperforming single units in 1v1.
Lower its range, take away its late game abilities and it would still be viable
7 Aug 2020, 18:25 PM
#55
avatar of thedarkarmadillo

Posts: 5279



Not that I disagree with your point, but maybe check that math again because you switched numbers.
45 mun is 60 MP in that conversion making the WC51 260 MP.

We can also use other (rough) conversions, such as standard mines killing 2 models maximum (~50-60 MP). This gives an approximate conversion of 1 MP being worth 0,5-0,6 mun.


The WC51 is quite a niche unit though. As already said, I don't know if anyone at a semi serious level plays this unit outside of 1v1. Like most of those super light vehicles though, they need their space and they don't get much in team games. But maybe that's a plus for balancing it if we don't have to take care of larger game modes.


Yea I definitely swapped the numbers. That's my bad. I don't agree with the mine trade though because mines primarily are as a snare, not mp bleed and the model cap was in lieu of spacing changes. It's not so much a hard ratio as an accidental one.



Check the math.

While i can't find any source, i remember that Relic valued mp/muni/fuel at a ratio of 1:3:5
It's not that resource conversions work that way, it might had been how xp value or something was assigned.


I do recall something along those lines however that was at a different stage of the game when resource conversion was all over. Now that there is but a single way to convert (I don't really count the soviet one since it has other variables and also doesn't include all resources) its easy to calculate by that standard metric.
I'd say it's roughly accurate too with mental applications without the conversional math as well. If I use 30mu for a nade and (outside a strategic use of course) don't kill at least 2 models I feel it a waste

Anyways. Is the wc51 over performing? Probably. But is it worth less than a kuble with the munitions upgrade? Certainly not. Even with my bad math it was worth more and any metric of resource conversion puts 45mu as worth more than 10mp.
7 Aug 2020, 18:38 PM
#56
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13476 | Subs: 1



.... But is it worth less than a kuble with the munitions upgrade? Certainly not. ...

The 1:3:5 conversation is correct and still applies.

When is calculating the cost of the WC51 one has to keep in mind that is also comes with a crew that can be used to repair vehicles. The cost of the crew alone is something like 170 mp so direct comparison with light vehicles from other faction can be misleading.
7 Aug 2020, 20:18 PM
#57
avatar of SgtJonson

Posts: 143

jump backJump back to quoted post7 Aug 2020, 18:38 PMVipper

The 1:3:5 conversation is correct and still applies.

When is calculating the cost of the WC51 one has to keep in mind that is also comes with a crew that can be used to repair vehicles. The cost of the crew alone is something like 170 mp so direct comparison with light vehicles from other faction can be misleading.




This hurts my feelings even more. Thats 2 units for the prize of not even one in certain Factions.
7 Aug 2020, 21:30 PM
#58
avatar of Katitof

Posts: 17875 | Subs: 8

jump backJump back to quoted post7 Aug 2020, 18:38 PMVipper
The cost of the crew alone is something like 170 mp so direct comparison with light vehicles from other faction can be misleading.

Using that as an argument is utter bullshit.

You do not have shermans costing 600mp because they have crew.
8 Aug 2020, 01:43 AM
#59
avatar of achpawel

Posts: 1351


Using that as an argument is utter bullshit.

You do not have shermans costing 600mp because they have crew.

And that is why they are so difficult to balance. The crew argument is absolutely valid.
8 Aug 2020, 04:30 AM
#60
avatar of CadianGuardsman

Posts: 348


And that is why they are so difficult to balance. The crew argument is absolutely valid.


I think the thing is the crew here is actually worth the cost of the vehicle. Like if I rush forward with a basic WC51 with Riflemen then immediately disembark even if the enemy tries to capture it I've got a good deal.

Personally I'd just make it cost 260 manpower or 200 manpower 10 fuel or remove the crew like how most artillery vehicles for the US work.

I don't think the artillery is useful because it's 180 muni and situational as hell, the mark target, step on it and 50 cal can be really frustrating though.

I would argue that the 51 is slightly OP but not as strong as a few people here have said.
PAGES (8)down
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

274 users are online: 274 guests
18 posts in the last 24h
44 posts in the last week
100 posts in the last month
Registered members: 44647
Welcome our newest member, Vassarh9
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM