Login

russian armor

Spring update from design point of view.

19 Apr 2018, 12:45 PM
#21
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 4181 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post19 Apr 2018, 11:26 AMKatitof


M3 medkits are part of it.

You questioned their existence in the first place.
I have pointed you out that all reinforcement HTs are unique and have diverse roles, M3 and ist medkits included.

You even brought the issue of soviets being able to heal on field thanks to that.
Well, guess what, they always could thanks to USF ambulance, tommies with medkits or their own FHQ.

Everything is on Topic, as much as you do not like it.

If there is an issue with design choices, ist the ever present murdering of asymmetry for the sake of Balance, where we do end up with more balanced game, but factions becoming more bland and same patch to patch.


The M3 assault group is a superior ability to the 250/M5 (soviet call in).

The M3 does need to be able to drop medic to become more attractive being able to move around the battlefield fast providing heal and reinforcement can create a number of issues.

As I have explained if it has to have healing it could simply come with a medic crew or use the old ambulance heal with its limitations.

If seem to have a different opinion and it is fine by me, but I am not going to derail the thread on a debate that is of topic like the differences of the Soviet and USF M5.
19 Apr 2018, 12:55 PM
#22
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 4181 | Subs: 1

"USF
• Pershing: 19
• Jackson: 16
• AAHT: 6
• Stuart: 6
• Major: 3
• M3: 5
• M5: 5
• WC51: 3
• M20: 4

OKW
• Command Panther: 19
• JP4: 15
• Panzer IV: 14
• Stuka: 12
• Puma: 7
• Luchs: 6
• Flak HT: 6
• Kubel: 3
• Sturmpios: 8

WEHR
• Tiger: 21
• Puma: 7
• 250: 3
• 251: 5
• Stug: 10
• 222: 4
• Grenadiers: 7
• Pakj40: 7 popcap (like other AT guns)

SOV
• IS2: 21
• SU85: 15
• M4C Sherman: 14
• T-70: 6
• T34/76: 10
• M5 HT: 5
• M3 Scout Car: 3
• Cons: 7

British
• Firefly: 16
• AEC: 6
• UC: 3
• Tommies: 7 (5-man: 8)
"


Some of the pop values seem a bit off.

Pershing a pop 19 its "counter" Panther 18.

JP pop 15 its target medium tanks from 10-12

Ostwind/Centaur 10 same as T-34/76.

Valentine 12

KV-8 14



19 Apr 2018, 13:17 PM
#23
avatar of Katitof

Posts: 11703 | Subs: 6

They do not seem to want to nerf stats of TDs, so they are soft capping them to 1 via pop cap.
19 Apr 2018, 13:34 PM
#24
avatar of EtherealDragon

Posts: 1365 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post19 Apr 2018, 08:26 AMVipper

M3 half-truck can be given to allies, while keeping the assault engineer crew. Giving an M3 to Soviet player for instance allows viable reinforcement and healing anywhere on the map, that can create a number of issues.

Actually M3 has very little reason to the only half-truck to provide healing in the first place.


How often does this happen though? You're assuming A) A highly coordinated AT B) A willingness to use Mechanized in a Team Game C) That healing crates pushes M3 into OP territory over the Soviet just building their own M5.

I'm sure there are probably more random games out there where this will never even happen so that eliminates a lot of the worry. Even if the gifted M3 was OP then Mechanized as a whole is still a pretty trashy commander whose best aspect the Mortar HT is getting nerfed this patch also - so the USF teammate would more or less be gimping themselves. Even-even then, field healing outside of Tommy medkits is very rarely used in my experience both playing and watching casts. Nobody wants to dump medkits in an area they might have to retreat from and waste munitions on medkits the enemy can steal. It's just very much a non-issure and far from the most concerning thing about this patch.
19 Apr 2018, 13:58 PM
#25
avatar of Bratkartoffel

Posts: 19

We had many diskussions about Stormpios, so that can´t really be the only change to it, can´t it?!

"Stun Grenade damage reduced from 20 to 5" - ok, but what about always having possibility to upgrade minesweeper, despite flamer or shrek?

We need more smal changes!
19 Apr 2018, 14:05 PM
#26
avatar of Lago

Posts: 1325

The Sturmpioneer's grenade changed because the Elite Troops doctrinal grenade changed. It's the same ability so they made it consistent.
19 Apr 2018, 14:48 PM
#27
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 4181 | Subs: 1

MORTAR CHANGES


The change to yellow cover modifier will make mortars performance change during similar or worse than hmg since the battlefield tend to turn into yellow cover.

If you want to avoid infantry squad wipes lower damage to 70-60 and add extra damage vs support weapons. This way mortars remain good vs support weapon and become less lethal.

In addition since you are nerfing mortars you should increase the modifier vs suppresed units so that synergy with hmg remain good.

Damage to garrison to 0.5 is simply too high since 2 moratrs will start wiping out garrison HMG constantly. A 0.34 value seems better. One should also check damage to trenches.


Making USF/Ostheer mortar and mortar HT to use the same values is actually bad and it is not even promote balance since they 2 faction are differently designed. In the case of the MHT the USF has more cost efficient abilities.

In the case of the M1 75mm Pack Howitzer simply removing the range vet bonus is wrong. It should be replaced by something else.

In the case of the 120mm if it technical possible it should become like other mortars and die with 1 crew, in addition if flare is vet 0 for 82 the same should apply for 120.

In the case of Leig nerf its veterancy 1 and 3 is again wrong it should be replaced by something else.
---------------

Generally speaking the time to deliver smoke should be reduced since it take too long from ordering to fire smoke to the time the first shell lands.


From a designed point of view imo it would far better for the game if each mortar become better at something according to faction design and that was also reflected to veterancy bonuses.

Examples:
USF mortar less lethal designed for betetr synergy with riflemen. Veterancy and characteristic for fast set up and fast delivery of smoke. Unpack time remain average so one should be careful on how to use it.

Ostheer mortar more lethal auto-fire better vs suppressed pinned squad for good synergy with hmg.
Vet 1 ability changed to a timed one that uses faster moving projectiles.

Soviet mortar superior barrage with better accuracy. Veterancy bonuses that improve barrage mostly.

UKF mortar better at defending UKF troops, ability when garrisoned to counter fire. Veterancy to improve range of smoke and effectiveness of counter fire.

120mm/Pak howi/Leig could be more defensively oriented with a long set up and good at counter fire (allow counter fire ability?)


An alternative suggestion would be to swap ostheer mortar with the Leig. (Swap also the name and model of the mg42 and mg34 from an immersion point of view). The the mortar could be model more like current USF one to better suit the aggressive OKW play-style and the Leig could become a Superior indirect fire weapon to better suit Ostheer play-style.

19 Apr 2018, 16:40 PM
#28
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 4181 | Subs: 1

I would also like to point out that when unit have the basic stats or role changed one should also make changes to veterancy bonuses and abilities.

Simply removing vet bonuses is not a solution either since units should remain balanced when vetted.

Units should be balanced in vet 0,1,2,3...
19 Apr 2018, 16:45 PM
#29
avatar of Lago

Posts: 1325

Why do you preface everything with "from a design point of view" as it somehow makes it more valid? It's a balance discussion.
19 Apr 2018, 16:46 PM
#30
avatar of Bratkartoffel

Posts: 19

jump backJump back to quoted post19 Apr 2018, 14:05 PMLago
The Sturmpioneer's grenade changed because the Elite Troops doctrinal grenade changed. It's the same ability so they made it consistent.


My point was, that Storms need also some changes.
19 Apr 2018, 16:52 PM
#31
avatar of Lago

Posts: 1325

My point was, that Storms need also some changes.


Hopefully they will in a future version of the patch. They haven't looked at Sturmpios and decided a stun grenade nerf was all they needed. They were just changing it to be consistent with the changes they made to the Elite Troops version.
20 Apr 2018, 08:14 AM
#32
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 4181 | Subs: 1

SNIPERS



SOVIET

Sniper




Imo less drastic changes on sniper can be more effective like:

Delaying the appearance.
UKF sniper seems to be the less problematic since it comes later on the field. This can be achieved by increasing time to to build and/or increasing tech cost (Ostheer requiring BP1(?) Soviet T1 have a higher fuel cost and build slower)

Reduce bleed
One could even remove the critical kill vs mainline infantry have a damage of 60 and have critical kill only vs support weapon teams.

Dedicated anti sniper infantry for USF/OKW.
Unis like the Pathfinders and JLIRS could get an option to hold fire and fire only vs snipers to make it easier to use them in counter snipping duties.

The soviet sniper team could be made to lose effectiveness when losing a model by making the sniper rifle nontransferable and the sight radius bonus available to spotter only and/or have some penalties when down to 1 model (ROF, camo...)

Another approach to snipers would be to reduce price,turn them to spotters and make the sniper rifle an upgrade.
21 Apr 2018, 11:15 AM
#33
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 4181 | Subs: 1

PANTHERS

Both Panthers are being standardized in reload and accuracy to improve performance; the health bonus at veterancy 2 has been shifted to the unit’s stock performance to improve its survivability against tank destroyers. Now possibly in its best spot yet.
• Wehr Panther fuel cost from 175 to 185
• Wehr far accuracy increased from 0.03 to 0.035
• HP increase from 800 to 960 (all variants)
• Front armour reduced to 260
• Veterancy 2 +160 HP bonus replaced by +10% armour bonus
• OKW Panther reload from 6.1 - 6.4 to 5.2 - 5.6
• Rear armour reduced from 110 to 90 (all variants)



Scaling

The idea of moving around veterancy bonuses is actually bad. A attempt must be made to have unit balanced in all vet levels.

Prime example is the change in Panther. Panther is a unit with High XP value and with the current vet bonuses reaching vet offer very little.

40% turret rotation and 26/9 is simply a very poor vet bonus. Especially the armor bonus is laughable since it will offer any protection to the unit.

Unit should have a role and vet bonuses should help the improve in that role. Currently the Panther does not have a clear role and vet bonuses seem really bad.

The Ostheer Panther pre and post patch might be better at vet 0 but its significantly weaker at vet 2 while more expensive.

Pre patch vet 2 Panther 960 hp 320/110 armor post Patch 960Hp 286/99 armor +0.05 far accuracy while being more expensive.

Survivability

The armor change turn the Panther into XP feed to allied TDs since they can easily damage (hit not counting collision and penetrate) the unit at max range.

Chance to damage:
FF--------81%*96% = 78% (x124%)
SU-85-----84*96 = 81% (x123%)
M36-------84*84 = 71% (x122%)

(Pre patch
FF--------66%*96% = 63%
SU-85-----69*96 = 66%
M36-------69*84 = 58%)


Things become even worse once these units start to vet and gain addition accuracy and penetration.

A Su-85 vet 2 has 100% chance to hit and 100% penetrate a vet 3 panther.

If the panther is to become useful and not an XP feed one should lower the change to be hit and penetrated at max range.

This can be achieved by reducing size and/or accuracy of allied TDs at max range.

All the vet bonuses or that starting stats for this unit need to be revised.


Rear/side armor

The rear/side armor change is completely unnecessary since it allows even T-34/76 a 89% to penetrate at max range.

It also make units like the Churchill to have x200% the rear armor of the Panther.



Suggestions:
If you one wants the Panther to become less heavily armored one should change the veterancy bonuses to be offensive ones and one should lower the target size.

Also one should lower the XP value of the unit.

Imo armor bonuses should be changed from x to + since units become very vulnerable to rear/side hits as they scale.

I would also suggested to give Ostheer and OKW Panther different roles by adding HE munition
to the Ostheer one.
22 Apr 2018, 09:50 AM
#34
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 4181 | Subs: 1

222 Armored Car
The 222 is receiving a cost and armor adjustment to make it more viable early-mid game and easier to replace in the later stages should it be destroyed.
• Manpower cost reduced from 250 to 200
• Front armour increased from 9 to 14
• Rear armour increased from 4.5 to 7


The 222 has being changing from being UP to OP from quite some time now and Imo this problem can easily be solved by reintroducing then 221.

The 221 take the role of a soft counter to armored cars a hard counter to sniper while the 222 can then take the role of soft counter to light tanks.

Then one will be able to balance both units better.

Suggestion:

Lower speed modifier for road increase speed modifier for yellow cover (that includes Puma and AEC)
Reasons: The large gap in modifiers make the unit behave inconstantly especially in late battlefield.

Standardize gun mechanics in the weapons of 222/Luch/Centaur.
Reasons: The current situation of 3 different types of characteristics is only confusing without serving balance. Change vet bonus to fit the weapon accuracy on the AOE weapon is not helpful.


23 Apr 2018, 01:35 AM
#35
avatar of Lucas Troy

Posts: 507

Vipper, past a certain point I really think you should focus this kind of energy on designing your own game.
23 Apr 2018, 11:23 AM
#36
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 4181 | Subs: 1

Panzergrenadiers
Panzergrenadiers are being given increased versatility; cheaper and more accurate panzerschreck will allow an alternative to the Pak40 that can support assaults with smoke grenades.
• Now have access to the Model 24 Smoke Grenade
• Panzerschreck upgrade munitions cost reduced from 120 to 100
• Panzerschreck far accuracy increased from 0.028 to 0.032


Imo the medic kits should be changed as a vet 1 ability.

A new ability could be one that give a small passive bonus when near tank/vehicles with bigger bonuses when those vehicles use their own vet 1 abilities. Thematically that would fit both the unit and the faction.

I would also suggest that unit cost is reduce to 280-300 and 2 stg 44 replace by k98. Then offer an upgrade for 2 ST44 or 2 Shrecks replacing the ST44.

That would prevent blobbing the unit.
23 Apr 2018, 15:13 PM
#37
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 4181 | Subs: 1

Brummbar
The Brummbar is having its scatter increased to reduce its squad wiping potential and allow it to better push back multiple squads grouped together.
• Scatter from 2.5/6 to 4.8/7.5
• Bunker buster (vet1 ability) scatter from 2.5/6 to 6.4/7.5


This change will have very limited impact unless you add scatter to attack ground.

The unit will become more frustrating for people not using attack ground and not noticed for people using attack ground.

Reducing the Kill radius will keeping scatter low will make unit allot more player friendly, while increasing the modifier vs garrison entrenchment to better define the tole of the unit.

Bunker buster ability could be improved by:
Making the ability scale with veterancy
Give the ability bonus damage vs emplacements

Other vet bonuses:
Vet bonus could include faster projectile speed

One could also trade lethality for more utility by adding a small stun (1-2 sec) or abit of suppression to make the unit less lethal bad better anti blob unit.

Alternative:
From a design point of view having 2 indirect fire unis in T4 is bad. One could move Brumbar or PW to T3 and Ostwind to T4 and adjust cost and performance.

23 Apr 2018, 17:01 PM
#38
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 4181 | Subs: 1

Command Panzer 4
We are reducing the bonuses of the Command Panzer IV’s aura to decrease its potency around units such as the Stug G and Panther that are either incredibly cost effective with increased durability or have high durability to begin with.
• Damage reduction lowered from 20% to 10%


The unit will simply not be worth it. Being more expensive than the PzIV (at 360/125 vs 350/120) while performing worse than the PzIV.

Suggestion:
Standardize the mechanics of all aura units.

Imo they should provide a small buff passively
They should also have an ability increasing the bonuses or adding more
Finally both auras should benefit from veterancy

For the PzIV replace the gun profile with one similar to the one Stug-E (historically thematically and in game it fit the role. (custom design vet bonuses for the specific unit)

Give an ability (maybe vet 1) to change to direct fire mode with AT ammunition with low penetration but some deflection damage.

Maybe make the commander animation provide some extra vision? (+5?)
26 Apr 2018, 10:58 AM
#39
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 4181 | Subs: 1

Stug
We feel the Stug’s strong DPSC is disproportionate to its cost. This combination of high rate of fire, strong and armour make the unit over perform in certain situations, especially when produced in numbers. To improve counter play, the following change has been made.
• Reload delay at Veterancy 0 increased by 1.5 seconds


One could even lower some of the penetration of the vehicle and swamp the armor bonus which is not really helpful (or some of reload bonuses) with penetration.

Alternatively one could replace the armor bonus with a target size bonus.

Finally one could replace the vet 1 ability TWP with cloak.

Sniper


Before turning the game into AOE where units are the same one should try to other solution.
For instance reducing the effectiveness of the units when its down to 1 entity, like 1 entity providing vision 1 entity having the sniper rifle or having a penalty to ROF.

Other changes could also help with sniper issues like:\
increasing built time
lowering damage to 64 (no cover penalties) and have the critical kill vs weapon crews only
26 Apr 2018, 13:23 PM
#40
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 4181 | Subs: 1

Conscript PPSh
Conscripts are now only upgraded with 2 PPsh’s per squad to reduce their close range lethality, improve counter play and increase reaction time for the opposing player.
• Number of PPSh slot items awarded from 3 to 2


Conscripts PPSH are bad from design point of view for a number of reasons.

Sort range weapon should not mix with long range weapon, a offensive weapon should not mix with a defensive ability like "hit the ground".

Suggestion:

Unify the way similar weapon upgrades work. There is little reason for MP40 upgrade to give 5 MP40 and to take up all weapon slot and PPSH to give 3 (2) and leave weapon slot.

Either give 6 PPSH and adjust DPS or replace the PPSH with SVT.

Remove hit the ground from PPSH upgrade.


Option 1 redesign conscripts as defensive infantry and replace Molotov with normal grenade increase, AT grenade range remove ourah and make hit the ground a vet 1 ability.

Make PPsh replace hit the ground with ourah to turn the unit into an offensive one.

Option 2 make "hit the ground" doctrinal.

Other change "hit the ground" should be timed ability. Both "hit the ground" and ourah could scale with veterancy.

Scaling.

Instead of creating a spike with vet 1 armor bonus reduce target size to 1. That will make merge more attractive. Reduce DPS to compensate.
1 user is browsing this thread: 1 guest

Livestreams

unknown 64
Korea, Republic Of 14
unknown 2
United States 1

Ladders Top 10

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

Replay highlight

VS
  • Soviets flag Talisman
  • U.S. Forces flag |GB| The HS H[oo]ligan
  • Soviets flag VonAsten
  • The British Forces flag RedT3rror
  • Ostheer flag Dzaraa
  • Oberkommando West flag RUKAclNoggano
  • Oberkommando West flag Insane DevM
  • Ostheer flag Luvnest
uploaded by Sturmpanther

Board Info

57 users are online: 9 members and 48 guests
IncendiaryRounds:), Esxile, Syraw, Aarotron, MakiesKurisu, -HOI-jimmy890, ylezalozi, SneakEye, chipwreckt
249 posts in the last 24h
1796 posts in the last week
6025 posts in the last month
Registered members: 29920
Welcome our newest member, ylezalozi
Most online: 805 users on 28 Oct 2018, 01:04 AM