Login

russian armor

I don't get why Brits are still receiving buffs

PAGES (8)down
29 May 2016, 14:57 PM
#81
avatar of RedT3rror

Posts: 747 | Subs: 2

29 May 2016, 15:23 PM
#82
avatar of sinthe

Posts: 414



I find it weird that you quoted me twice and responded differently to each post as if you forgot that you had already made a comment.

In any case, my "dismissive attitude" was because OP had 1 post, had a limited understanding of gameplay and was making large balance suggestions which are unlikely to balance the game.

You happened to post a number of reasons why the Brits are flat out "better" than all other factions, and yet they remain on the low end of 1v1 win percentages in top tier games.

No one is arguing that they need to be adjusted, but suggesting that I am failing to contribute by being dismissive is foolishness.


So, your position is that there is no problem because a new faction that the player base is getting used to has a lower w/l record that the other established factions?

Are you ok with the shooting on the move accuracy and the smaller sizes that the british tanks have?

Are you ok with the 2v2 space that forces a completely different response to emplacemences forcing OH to have specific so-so commanders equiped "just in case"?
29 May 2016, 15:46 PM
#83
avatar of sinthe

Posts: 414

I think the community largely believe that the Bofors is an issue. Currently the poll I've posted with 65 votes is 75% in agreement that there needs to be at least some tweaks to the Bofors.

Personally, I think the only change it needs to balance it out is a minimum range like it had in vCoh. I'm fine with all other stats.

I understand the need for a power level bump because the tech forces an either or decision.

Even being an axis player, I've supported a lot of the nerfs made to the axis faction. The space that the tiger was in during the call in meta was a huge issue. When tiger ace was first released, it was stupid OP. And the axis tanks at release were laughibly powerful.

I'll also disclamer that outside of the Bofors, my only criticisms regarding the factions power are non-viable units (for example: okw flak halftrack, t34/75, and some american light vehicles), Sov reliance on call in infantry, and generally any spam strategies (schreck blob or rifle blob).

I play for fun. I have the most fun playing axis. Not because I'm an axis fanboy but because I'm a panther tank fan boy. Lol. Edit: At least I'm honest with my bias. Everyone has a bias and to infer you don't, is dubius.
29 May 2016, 16:11 PM
#84
avatar of Putinist

Posts: 175



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority


Huh, which authority?

And to clarify, it wasn't Firespark that made the fallacy.
29 May 2016, 16:20 PM
#85
avatar of Mr.Smith

Posts: 2636 | Subs: 17

jump backJump back to quoted post29 May 2016, 15:23 PMsinthe


So, your position is that there is no problem because a new faction that the player base is getting used to has a lower w/l record that the other established factions?

Are you ok with the shooting on the move accuracy and the smaller sizes that the british tanks have?

Are you ok with the 2v2 space that forces a completely different response to emplacemences forcing OH to have specific so-so commanders equiped "just in case"?


I don't think that anybody sane would ever deny that the game suffers from emplacement-play, and that the land mattress is a bit stronger than it should have been.

However, try to read the OP, and try to play devil's advocate with it.
- Do you believe that the views expressed in the OP are fair and objective?
- Even when the OP identifies issues. Is the analysis correct?

In order to help guide you to think a bit more objectively, I'm offering some comprehension questions to you:
- Is the main issue with emplacement play the fact that the Bofors is better than the OKW T1 halftrack? (OP's opinion)
- If we made Bofors a copy-paste of the OKW T4 FlakHQ, do you think that would solve the issues with emplacements? Or is it the Mortar Pit?
- Is Comet really more accurate on the move than other, similar, tanks? Did you factor in similar tanks' Vet1 abilities?
- How does Comet veterancy compared to other tanks' veterancy. Does the Vet1 ability really scale with the amount of Comets fielded?
- How relevant is the grenade toss to Comet's performance, really?
- How relevant is the Churchill at all without a grenade toss?
- If AVRE is such a major issue, how does the Sturmtiger compare to the AVRE?
- Enumerate all indirect fire options for the Brits which are even remotely useful.
- If land mattress shouldn't exist, then what about Katysha, Panzerwerfer and Calliope? Is it an issue with the stats, instead?

Advanced reading:
- State at least 3 downsides that Tommies have compared to other mainline infantry.
- How would each of the other 4 factions perform if we substituted their mainline infantry with Tommies?
- How would Brits perform if we substituted Tommies with LMG Grens?
29 May 2016, 16:33 PM
#86
avatar of Domine

Posts: 500

I don't think that anybody sane would ever deny that the game suffers from emplacement-play, and that the land mattress is a bit stronger than it should have been.



All you needed to say right there
29 May 2016, 18:20 PM
#87
avatar of sinthe

Posts: 414



I don't think that anybody sane would ever deny that the game suffers from emplacement-play, and that the land mattress is a bit stronger than it should have been.

However, try to read the OP, and try to play devil's advocate with it.
- Do you believe that the views expressed in the OP are fair and objective? [color=red]inaccurate at times and hyberbolic
- Even when the OP identifies issues. Is the analysis correct? He is correct in identifying disparities, and the point I was trying to make was, that people are getting frustrated with being told that the emplacement play is a L2P issue when the majority of Coh players agree there is a bit of a power issue. The same arguement was used with the Tiger back in the era of the call in meta. It wasn't a L2p issue, the damn thing was way too cost effective. Granted I would have liked to see the cost increased and tied to t4 rather than the nerfing. That also being said, I have been disapointed witht he russians since the games release. I was hoping/expecting that the game would be a balance across expensive equipment and trained soldiers vs less effective equipment/troops in number. Ie. my panzer 4 would have to deal with at least 2 t34s

In order to help guide you to think a bit more objectively, I'm offering some comprehension questions to you:
- Is the main issue with emplacement play the fact that the Bofors is better than the OKW T1 halftrack?/b] (OP's opinion) No
- If we made Bofors a copy-paste of the OKW T4 FlakHQ, do you think that would solve the issues with emplacements? NoOr is it the Mortar Pit? Not specifically the mortar pit
- Is Comet really more accurate on the move than other, similar, tanks? Did you factor in similar tanks' Vet1 abilities? Yes, they have the best accuracy on the move compared to all other tanks except for americans. Yes I did, okw panthers get another -25% reduction at vet 5.
- How does Comet veterancy compared to other tanks' veterancy. Does the Vet1 ability really scale with the amount of Comets fielded? The replacement of smoke with White Phosphorus is a nice addition to prevent handheld at to follow on retreat or smoking out/damaging support weapons
- How relevant is the grenade toss to Comet's performance, really? Vet 3 the gernade toss is automatic to all targets in range. The grenade toss is an open funtional ability.
- How relevant is the Churchill at all without a grenade toss? I haven't seen the churchhill used in awhile but I doubt it has anything to do with the grenade toss. I think it's because players, when faced with an either or tech structure will choose the comet over the churchill.
- If AVRE is such a major issue, how does the Sturmtiger compare to the AVRE? AVRE isn't an issue. It has low range and if you let it get as close as it needs to be..... I mean it's not like it's a surprise.
- Enumerate all indirect fire options for the Brits which are even remotely useful. Mortar, 25 pounder options, land matress, Bofors, and the call in arty is pretty good.
- If land mattress shouldn't exist, then what about Katysha, Panzerwerfer and Calliope? Is it an issue with the stats, instead? The land matress isn't the issue it's when it comes out that is an issue. 5 cps is a bit quick. Also, I believe that it's the only on map arty piece that recieves a damage bonus at vet, which I am indifferent towards.

Advanced reading:
- State at least 3 downsides that Tommies have compared to other mainline infantry. Cost, rof, only effective stationary and muni intensive healing
- How would each of the other 4 factions perform if we substituted their mainline infantry with Tommies? With or w/o access to the weapon racks? Sov = better, American = better if tommies can have bars, oh= worse, okw = better w/o schrecks, but equivilant with if you take hand held AT into account
- How would Brits perform if we substituted Tommies with LMG Grens? Worse
29 May 2016, 18:43 PM
#88
avatar of elchino7
Senior Moderator Badge

Posts: 8154 | Subs: 2

I don't want to get further on this discussion, but i'm just gonna say that ANY faction receiving Tommies replacing their main line infantry would be in a worst state.

SU: no map control, heavy bleeding, no support weapon/sniper play performance to compensate. Late light vehicle and no snare.

USF: Bars aren't LMG. Bar are meant to be used CQC and on the move. The opposite of Tommies

OKW: good luck with mp attrition with 280 and 300 mp units.


Also: Gren replacing Tommies would be broken. Faust and Rnade alone solves most of UKF weakness. 5th man upgrade, double bren and bunker would make it a real cancer faction to play against.
29 May 2016, 18:51 PM
#89
avatar of Mr.Smith

Posts: 2636 | Subs: 17

jump backJump back to quoted post29 May 2016, 18:20 PMsinthe

- Is Comet really more accurate on the move than other, similar, tanks? Did you factor in similar tanks' Vet1 abilities? Yes, they have the best accuracy on the move compared to all other tanks except for americans. Yes I did, okw panthers get another -25% reduction at vet 5.


Check OKW Panther and the Combat Blitz ability on the ability guide. Now, tell me again. Which tank has the best accuracy on the move?

If you still have objections, check the MP cost and the teching costs of the OKW panther.

jump backJump back to quoted post29 May 2016, 18:20 PMsinthe

- How relevant is the Churchill at all without a grenade toss? I haven't seen the churchhill used in awhile but I doubt it has anything to do with the grenade toss. I think it's because players, when faced with an either or tech structure will choose the comet over the churchill.

If Churchill didn't have the grenade, it would never-ever-ever-ever worth it to field one. It has the same gun as the Cromwell, but without the ability to flank. Also pricier too.

A crappy tank that can flank (T-34) is occasionally useful (e.g., sacrificing it to kill a Panzerwerfer farm). A crappy tank that can't move or fire is a waste of popcap space and a veterancy-feeder.

jump backJump back to quoted post29 May 2016, 18:20 PMsinthe

- If AVRE is such a major issue, how does the Sturmtiger compare to the AVRE? AVRE isn't an issue. It has low range and if you let it get as close as it needs to be..... I mean it's not like it's a surprise.


The OP mentioned the AVRE. A "balance pls" topic without at least mentioning similar units is either naive or dishonest.

jump backJump back to quoted post29 May 2016, 18:20 PMsinthe

- Enumerate all indirect fire options for the Brits which are even remotely useful. Mortar, 25 pounder options, land matress, Bofors, and the call in arty is pretty good.


How many of these options are non-doc and suitable for the late-game? What about mobile options?

Have you ever tried standing in the barrage area of a 25 pounder? It does literally nothing 19 times out of 20.

jump backJump back to quoted post29 May 2016, 18:20 PMsinthe

- State at least 3 downsides that Tommies have compared to other mainline infantry. Cost, rof, only effective stationary and muni intensive healing


ROF is not relevant by itself. You need to mention how that factors in with their DPS. Do Tommies have superior DPS or do they have inferior DPS to other units? Does this make up for their lack of utility.

You could also add:
- lack of snares
- lack of grenades suitable for their range profile

None of the other units in the UKF arsenal really make up for either in the early game (... unless you spam emplacements)

jump backJump back to quoted post29 May 2016, 18:20 PMsinthe

- How would each of the other 4 factions perform if we substituted their mainline infantry with Tommies? With or w/o access to the weapon racks? Sov = better, American = better if tommies can have bars, oh= worse, okw = better w/o schrecks, but equivilant with if you take hand held AT into account
- How would Brits perform if we substituted Tommies with LMG Grens? Worse


This is a L2P UKF issue.

The lack of snares, grenades and smoke really stings.
- Soviets, yes (only if they have access to Brens); that's because conscripts scale even worse than Tommies. Lack of snares never hurt any maxim build ever.
- USF, though? Play 10 games as UKF and 10 games as USF. Riflemen are the best infantry in the game. By far.

If UKF had access to Grenadiers (just the LMG upgrade, and no 5-man), they would steamroll over everything. Basically what Elchino said:


Also: Gren replacing Tommies would be broken. Faust and Rnade alone solves most of UKF weakness. 5th man upgrade, double bren and bunker would make it a real cancer faction to play against.

29 May 2016, 19:15 PM
#90
avatar of __deleted__

Posts: 4314 | Subs: 7

29 May 2016, 22:12 PM
#91
avatar of RedT3rror

Posts: 747 | Subs: 2

jump backJump back to quoted post29 May 2016, 18:20 PMsinthe
Yes, they have the best accuracy on the move compared to all other tanks except for americans.


Still convinced about your accuracy on the move huh? Just for your information: The Panther has 33% more accuracy on far than the Comet while the Comet has a moving penalty modifier which is 15% higher. The Comet surpasses the Panther at vet2 where both have pretty much the same accuracy on far.


29 May 2016, 22:24 PM
#92
avatar of Intelligence209

Posts: 1124

I'm pretty sure the comet was voted the best overall tank in the game.

But anyways. Just wait till player count goes under 2,000. Then 1,500 and so on when the cancer becomes terminal
29 May 2016, 22:44 PM
#93
avatar of sinthe

Posts: 414


Check OKW Panther and the Combat Blitz ability on the ability guide. Now, tell me again. Which tank has the best accuracy on the move?


Good point. I see your previous comparison between the usefulness of the smoke vs either of the blitz abilities. Yes, the okw Panther can have it's accuracy, speed and received accuracy increased by a durational ability that has a munitions cost. But it's worth noting that at vet 2 the comet gets +30% accuracy and 35% weapons rotation and at vet 3, it's +30% speed, +20% acceleration and an auto nade ability. It also has it's own blitzeque ability that has to be reset after every use. Vett'd up the comet is so fast, it's very easy to crush infantry while your crew members are tossing nades at the survivors. It's also a smaller target which is like getting -9% received accuracy all the time. Honestly, I really like playing with the comet, it's a great tank, definately different than a Panther, it's just a bit light on the cost side. Maybe even mispriced, a bit more fuel and bit less mp. That's all I'm saying.


If you still have objections, check the MP cost and the teching costs of the OKW panther.


Yes, I understand the tech cost of okw. All of their vehicles are just priced higher in fuel and there are a lot of either/or decisions made mid game that effect the timing of your panther late game. The british don't have as much of a fuel constraint, they seem to have a manpower constraint, which makes lossing units harder to handle.


If Churchill didn't have the grenade, it would never-ever-ever-ever worth it to field one. It has the same gun as the Cromwell, but without the ability to flank. Also pricier too.

A crappy tank that can flank (T-34) is occasionally useful (e.g., sacrificing it to kill a Panzerwerfer farm). A crappy tank that can't move or fire is a waste of popcap space and a veterancy-feeder.


Agreed.


The OP mentioned the AVRE. A "balance pls" topic without at least mentioning similar units is either naive or dishonest.


Agreed.


How many of these options are non-doc and suitable for the late-game? What about mobile options?

Have you ever tried standing in the barrage area of a 25 pounder? It does literally nothing 19 times out of 20.


Good point, but the arty they do have, barring the 25 pounders, seems to be very effective. The power of the land mattress is fine if it's a bit higher than 5 cp.


ROF is not relevant by itself. You need to mention how that factors in with their DPS. Do Tommies have superior DPS or do they have inferior DPS to other units? Does this make up for their lack of utility.

You could also add:
- lack of snares
- lack of grenades suitable for their range profile

None of the other units in the UKF arsenal really make up for either in the early game (... unless you spam emplacements)


I believe it's high damage per shot, longer RoF and slightly lower dps. But this damage profile kills models more evenly, than the low damage higher RoF. It's a disadvantage because losing a model hurts more than a grenedier squad where the dps is consentrated on one gun. But when they get 2 lmgs late game, I feel like the perform more like a mob of rambos.


This is a L2P UKF issue.

The lack of snares, grenades and smoke really stings.
- Soviets, yes (only if they have access to Brens); that's because conscripts scale even worse than Tommies. Lack of snares never hurt any maxim build ever.
- USF, though? Play 10 games as UKF and 10 games as USF. Riflemen are the best infantry in the game. By far.

If UKF had access to Grenadiers (just the LMG upgrade, and no 5-man), they would steamroll over everything. Basically what Elchino said:


Good point. I agree. I think the strenght of the Bofors and the AEC were intended to make up for snares via raw dps to light vehicles. To adjust my opinion slightly, I think the emplacement play is a symptom of bad faction design and the best way to deal with the problem is to remove the either/or teching design. Maybe have them operate as a sub tier like t2.5 and t4.5 by making one upgrade unlock both units. I don't see anything wrong by letting a british player use both AEC and Bofors aswell as both comets and churchhills. The british player needs more options. (Previous position was that Bofors needs a min range)
29 May 2016, 22:54 PM
#94
avatar of sinthe

Posts: 414



Still convinced about your accuracy on the move huh? Just for your information: The Panther has 33% more accuracy on far than the Comet while the Comet has a moving penalty modifier which is 15% higher. The Comet surpasses the Panther at vet2 where both have pretty much the same accuracy on far.




Moving penalty MULTIPLIER +15% higher. An accuaracy of .03(f).06(n) would be multiplied by the moving penalty multiplier, which would mean that the larger the moving penalty multiplier the less of an effect it has on accuracy.

The accuaracy buff(30%) also indirectly improves moving accuracy. Ie. .06*1.3*.75 which basically removes any moving penalty.

The panther and cromwell have different strenghts and weaknesses. Power/armour vs speed/accuracy. They are, in my eyes, equivilent in utility and that should be reflected in the price.
29 May 2016, 23:04 PM
#95
avatar of sinthe

Posts: 414


But anyways. Just wait till player count goes under 2,000. Then 1,500 and so on when the cancer becomes terminal


This is the major reason that I'm speaking up about this, that seems to be lost on the higher ranked players that like to player card bully.

The treating it as if it's a L2P issue is a big problem, if this doesn't get addressed, all the new players or players of lower skill levels become discouraged and start leaving the game. The game has to be at least fun for learning players otherwise we are unknowingly killing our beloved games longevity.
29 May 2016, 23:20 PM
#96
avatar of RedT3rror

Posts: 747 | Subs: 2

jump backJump back to quoted post29 May 2016, 23:04 PMsinthe


This is the major reason that I'm speaking up about this, that seems to be lost on the higher ranked players that like to player card bully.

The treating it as if it's a L2P issue is a big problem, if this doesn't get addressed, all the new players or players of lower skill levels become discouraged and start leaving the game. The game has to be at least fun for learning players otherwise we are unknowingly killing our beloved games longevity.


Taking the side of the weak players for balance now? Well, I´ve got bad news for you. OKW is a much more pressing issue in lower ranks.

jump backJump back to quoted post29 May 2016, 22:54 PMsinthe


Moving penalty MULTIPLIER +15% higher. An accuaracy of .03(f).06(n) would be multiplied by the moving penalty multiplier, which would mean that the larger the moving penalty multiplier the less of an effect it has on accuracy.

The accuaracy buff(30%) also indirectly improves moving accuracy. Ie. .06*1.3*.75 which basically removes any moving penalty.

The panther and cromwell have different strenghts and weaknesses. Power/armour vs speed/accuracy. They are, in my eyes, equivilent in utility and that should be reflected in the price.


I´m not sure what you want to tell me, but the Panther has superior accuracy on long range(which is obviously the favourable combat distance against supported units), no matter wether he`s moving or standing still, until the Comet hits vet2. That's a fact.

Oh and abou the cost. A straight tech to Comet will cost 30+115+50+185=380 while OKW pays 40+135+200=375. Granted you are ignoring any side tech for brits, which is often mandatory.
29 May 2016, 23:56 PM
#97
avatar of __deleted__

Posts: 1225

Jesus this thread. Still, Op has a point. OKW is poorly designed and annoying to play against, but they are hardly particularly strong as is.
Brits on the other hand, on top of being no less cheesy are broken beyond belief if they ever manage to pick up momentum and shoehorn Ostheer especially in a very particular playstyle centered around exerting early pressure with a sniper or Prosttruppen into fast 222.
Now if OH utilises that playstyle, the OH vs Brit matchup is actually reasonably balanced insofar as ceteris paribus skill will be the decisive factor. However, any deviation from that is simply not viable...and thats the epitome of poor design. And don't get me started on land mattresses, borderline invincible self repairing emplacements, automatically stunning artillery, perma-recon and all the other gimmicky nonsense that make Brits the faction of choice of the consumate tryhard and the abuser par excellence...
All that means I won't be buying Brits anytime soon which is a shame, since more flavour is always welcome and the Brits have far and away the best voiceacting in the game. Meh.
Rant over.
30 May 2016, 08:29 AM
#98
avatar of Mr.Smith

Posts: 2636 | Subs: 17

jump backJump back to quoted post29 May 2016, 22:44 PMsinthe


Good point. I see your previous comparison between the usefulness of the smoke vs either of the blitz abilities. Yes, the okw Panther can have it's accuracy, speed and received accuracy increased by a durational ability that has a munitions cost. But it's worth noting that at vet 2 the comet gets +30% accuracy and 35% weapons rotation and at vet 3, it's +30% speed, +20% acceleration and an auto nade ability. It also has it's own blitzeque ability that has to be reset after every use. Vett'd up the comet is so fast, it's very easy to crush infantry while your crew members are tossing nades at the survivors. It's also a smaller target which is like getting -9% received accuracy all the time. Honestly, I really like playing with the comet, it's a great tank, definately different than a Panther, it's just a bit light on the cost side. Maybe even mispriced, a bit more fuel and bit less mp. That's all I'm saying.


The Comet gets speed veterancy. Auto-nades could be removed/changed/etc. However, have you ever noticed what Panthers get in return for their Vet? A Comet will lose in 1v1 vs a Panther at Vet0, most of the time. At Vet2 and above, there is no way the Panther can lose to a Comet.

jump backJump back to quoted post29 May 2016, 22:44 PMsinthe

Yes, I understand the tech cost of okw. All of their vehicles are just priced higher in fuel and there are a lot of either/or decisions made mid game that effect the timing of your panther late game. The british don't have as much of a fuel constraint, they seem to have a manpower constraint, which makes lossing units harder to handle.


Not only that. As the game drags on, OKW always has the opportunity to tap onto both their resources (MP, Fuel) and pull out something useful. If you are floating fuel, it's time of a (great) new tank. If you have low fuel, it's time for another Volks squad. No other faction possesses a similar advantage.

jump backJump back to quoted post29 May 2016, 22:44 PMsinthe

Good point, but the arty they do have, barring the 25 pounders, seems to be very effective. The power of the land mattress is fine if it's a bit higher than 5 cp.


Land mattress is DLC, and needs a nerf (rocket potency, or at least rate of fire), which it is getting. However, Brits have nothing else available to break a pak-wall:
- Their infantry is completely useless vs entrenched enemy (except for doctrinal commandos)
- Mortar Pits can't just pick up and relocate

This is why Brits have tanks that seem so strong; they need to be autonomous to operate, because they can't get any support from anywhere else.

Now, as long as Brits continue to lack access to indirect fire, their tanks will have to continue to be strong. Otherwise, they would be a lame duck.

jump backJump back to quoted post29 May 2016, 22:44 PMsinthe

I believe it's high damage per shot, longer RoF and slightly lower dps. But this damage profile kills models more evenly, than the low damage higher RoF. It's a disadvantage because losing a model hurts more than a grenedier squad where the dps is consentrated on one gun. But when they get 2 lmgs late game, I feel like the perform more like a mob of rambos.


It's either more DPS or less DPS, or equal DPS. Infantry fights don't resolve themselves in 5 hits (like tanks do), they drag on much longer.

jump backJump back to quoted post29 May 2016, 22:44 PMsinthe

Good point. I agree. I think the strenght of the Bofors and the AEC were intended to make up for snares via raw dps to light vehicles. To adjust my opinion slightly, I think the emplacement play is a symptom of bad faction design and the best way to deal with the problem is to remove the either/or teching design. Maybe have them operate as a sub tier like t2.5 and t4.5 by making one upgrade unlock both units. I don't see anything wrong by letting a british player use both AEC and Bofors aswell as both comets and churchhills. The british player needs more options. (Previous position was that Bofors needs a min range)



The AEC is not particularly strong at all. It (really) is just a crappier puma, with a twist:
- The first AEC is more expensive (due to the side-tech cost)
- Treadbreaker is OP, but it's the only thing it has
- Shorter range means you can't kite the enemy (like Puma can)
- Terrible turret traverse means you can't flank the enemy (like Puma also can)

The reason why AEC seems so awesome, while (OKW) Puma seems so meh has to do with the armies they are in. Brits have absolutely nothing that can threaten light armour rushes apart from their 6pounder (no snares, inaccurate handheld, no cloaking gun). Thus, even the AEC alone seems godlike. OKW have so much AT readily available to them, they probably don't need the Puma most of the time; they need the Luchs, to break the enemy's infantry.

Comets and Heavy Sappers would probably be very, very OP.
30 May 2016, 13:59 PM
#99
avatar of sinthe

Posts: 414



Taking the side of the weak players for balance now? Well, I´ve got bad news for you. OKW is a much more pressing issue in lower ranks.



I´m not sure what you want to tell me, but the Panther has superior accuracy on long range(which is obviously the favourable combat distance against supported units), no matter wether he`s moving or standing still, until the Comet hits vet2. That's a fact.

Oh and abou the cost. A straight tech to Comet will cost 30+115+50+185=380 while OKW pays 40+135+200=375. Granted you are ignoring any side tech for brits, which is often mandatory.


That is a set of data reflecting games played not games won. I don't see how you draw that conclusion, when there are an equal number of games played between axis and allies and the side that has fewer factions record more game per faction.

Regarding the accuracy
Comet on the move Long range: 0.03*0.75 = 0.0225
Panther on the move Long range: 0.04*0.65 = 0.026

Comet on the move close range: .06*.75 = 0.045
Panther on the move close range: .06*.65 = 0.039

13% difference in favour of the Panther long range and a 13% difference in favor of the comet moving close range.

They are both good tanks with a different set of strenghts. Ie. long range slugger vs hit and run tactics.

Yes that is the teching cost. I have already stated that I think the side teching is a problem in the design. Maybe reducing fuel for t3?
30 May 2016, 14:23 PM
#100
avatar of sinthe

Posts: 414



The Comet gets speed veterancy. Auto-nades could be removed/changed/etc. However, have you ever noticed what Panthers get in return for their Vet? A Comet will lose in 1v1 vs a Panther at Vet0, most of the time. At Vet2 and above, there is no way the Panther can lose to a Comet.


The Comet has the speed to out maneuver and and if it can get behind the panther or circle strafe the Panther is going to have a problem. It's strenght vs speed. The grenade thing is fine, in fact it is a cool feature to have included.


Not only that. As the game drags on, OKW always has the opportunity to tap onto both their resources (MP, Fuel) and pull out something useful. If you are floating fuel, it's time of a (great) new tank. If you have low fuel, it's time for another Volks squad. No other faction possesses a similar advantage.


I'm not sure about this. Every faction can make mp useful.


Land mattress is DLC, and needs a nerf (rocket potency, or at least rate of fire), which it is getting. However, Brits have nothing else available to break a pak-wall:
- Their infantry is completely useless vs entrenched enemy (except for doctrinal commandos)
- Mortar Pits can't just pick up and relocate


Landmatress is fine outside of it's 5 cp requirement, somewhere around 7-9 would be good.


This is why Brits have tanks that seem so strong; they need to be autonomous to operate, because they can't get any support from anywhere else.


Makes sense.


Now, as long as Brits continue to lack access to indirect fire, their tanks will have to continue to be strong. Otherwise, they would be a lame duck.


Your discounting the effectiveness of the off map arty. OKW has the literally opposite problem and I don't know which is a better problem to have.


It's either more DPS or less DPS, or equal DPS. Infantry fights don't resolve themselves in 5 hits (like tanks do), they drag on much longer.


More damge per shot at a lower rate of fire results in models dieing faster. Ie. lower damge per shot at a higher dps speads out across the models in the unit more evenly as high damage lower rate of fire kill models faster. It's 5 shots to kill a model vs 3 (not exact numbers but I'm explaining the abnormality in their damage profile.


The AEC is not particularly strong at all. It (really) is just a crappier puma, with a twist:
- The first AEC is more expensive (due to the side-tech cost)
- Treadbreaker is OP, but it's the only thing it has
- Shorter range means you can't kite the enemy (like Puma can)
- Terrible turret traverse means you can't flank the enemy (like Puma also can)


I see your point. Turret traverse is an issue. I usually use 2-3 scout cars to kill them.


The reason why AEC seems so awesome, while (OKW) Puma seems so meh has to do with the armies they are in. Brits have absolutely nothing that can threaten light armour rushes apart from their 6pounder (no snares, inaccurate handheld, no cloaking gun). Thus, even the AEC alone seems godlike. OKW have so much AT readily available to them, they probably don't need the Puma most of the time; they need the Luchs, to break the enemy's infantry.


I see your point. But a bofors deletes light armour and drawing a luchs into bofors range means you have a dead luchs.


Comets and Heavy Sappers would probably be very, very OP.


Perhaps.

Can we maybe agree that the solution to the bofors/emplacement issue might be best solved by fixing the brits to allow for more viable strategies?
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

613 users are online: 1 member and 612 guests
Crecer13
21 posts in the last 24h
51 posts in the last week
104 posts in the last month
Registered members: 44659
Welcome our newest member, Yourcounselling
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM