Login

russian armor

Brit tank scatter

16 Jul 2018, 17:37 PM
#21
avatar of thedarkarmadillo

Posts: 3960 | Subs: 1

All teams should have their mgs buffed instead of relying on RNG aoe for AI...
16 Jul 2018, 17:44 PM
#22
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 8287 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post16 Jul 2018, 17:05 PMMongal


It depends on how you look at it. If the cromwell needs 175% and 232% buff to reach the t34 levels then that just shows you how bad the cromwell mgs are.

Or T-34 have far superior mg than most tanks and should have them nerfed. And that is closer to the reality since Cromwell has average hmg.

Or Other tanks should also have their hmg buffed.

The "anomaly" here is T-34 not Cromwell.
16 Jul 2018, 17:58 PM
#23
avatar of Mongal

Posts: 102

jump backJump back to quoted post16 Jul 2018, 17:44 PMVipper

Or T-34 have far superior mg than most tanks and should have them nerfed. And that is closer to the reality since Cromwell has average hmg.

Or Other tanks should also have their hmg buffed.

The "anomaly" here is T-34 not Cromwell.


How does the T34 compare with a P4 with the mg42 upgrade?
16 Jul 2018, 18:46 PM
#24
avatar of Katitof

Posts: 15217 | Subs: 7

All teams should have their mgs buffed instead of relying on RNG aoe for AI...


I've been mentioning this for a long time now.

But people prefer OHK main cannon hits I guess as I got maybe 2 people to back me up on that.
16 Jul 2018, 20:31 PM
#25
avatar of Mcq_knight

Posts: 42

jump backJump back to quoted post16 Jul 2018, 18:46 PMKatitof


I've been mentioning this for a long time now.

But people prefer OHK main cannon hits I guess as I got maybe 2 people to back me up on that.


I dont think that would make things more consistant. A DPS based primarily around mg damage would overpreform when it first hits the map due to little to no crater formation yet, and preform worse as the game progresses as cover becomes more avaliable. Furthermore, that would be a huge buff for AT inf in urban maps with abundant cover from the start of the game.

16 Jul 2018, 22:11 PM
#26
avatar of thedarkarmadillo

Posts: 3960 | Subs: 1



I dont think that would make things more consistant. A DPS based primarily around mg damage would overpreform when it first hits the map due to little to no crater formation yet, and preform worse as the game progresses as cover becomes more avaliable. Furthermore, that would be a huge buff for AT inf in urban maps with abundant cover from the start of the game.


Tanks SHOULD be spooky shit when they hit the field and if they degrade it incentives things like 105 Sherman's or brumbar and the like more as they Excell more when cover is about (especially the new brum profile). It would push diversity. Urban maps SHOULD be scary with hand AT as open maps are for AT guns. One size fits all garbage needs to go. As should "flanked a lone AT gun but the cannon missed 8 shots in a row so I had to run away because reinforcements arrived and I didn't drop a model"

Tighten the AOE on tanks but make them a bit more accurate to compensate
16 Jul 2018, 22:46 PM
#27
avatar of Katitof

Posts: 15217 | Subs: 7



I dont think that would make things more consistant. A DPS based primarily around mg damage would overpreform when it first hits the map due to little to no crater formation yet, and preform worse as the game progresses as cover becomes more avaliable. Furthermore, that would be a huge buff for AT inf in urban maps with abundant cover from the start of the game.


Tanks SHOULD be a MAJOR threat to infantry with no AT support.
You'd rather RNG insta wipes then consistent damage?

And I'm not talking about 40 DPS far either here.

20 far, 40 close with all MGs would do the trick, only issue that would need to be resolved is the scaling, cutting off some reload time into MG accuracy would be needed to counter act infantry rec acc vet.
17 Jul 2018, 03:07 AM
#28
avatar of Firesparks

Posts: 1930

jump backJump back to quoted post16 Jul 2018, 18:46 PMKatitof


I've been mentioning this for a long time now.

But people prefer OHK main cannon hits I guess as I got maybe 2 people to back me up on that.


a buff to the reload skill also make the cromwell better against tanks. A mg buff is only useful against infantry.

or how the mg's 35 range doesn't mesh well with the cromwell's upgraded 45 sights

or how the cromwell used to have 18 size, meaning it worked best as a skirmisher tank,

or how the cromwell's excellent speed and acceleration is wasted on having to stop and use the mg


The buff to the t34/76's mg hasn't really make it that popular of a tank either. Ironically it has made the t34/85 probably the best medium tank in the game.

jump backJump back to quoted post16 Jul 2018, 17:58 PMMongal


How does the T34 compare with a P4 with the mg42 upgrade?



the p4 with the upgrade is better by a small margin. Without the upgrade the t-34 is better
17 Jul 2018, 03:28 AM
#29
avatar of roll0

Posts: 64

Permanently Banned
jump backJump back to quoted post16 Jul 2018, 16:52 PMVipper

Because you make it sound like T-34 has average DPS on mgs and thus Cromwell should get at least average DPS on the hmg.

You area actually talking about:
x160-175% buff to DPS for coaxial
X240-232% buff to DPS for hull

Those are very big buffs.

In addition if you think that the difference between T-34/76 and Cromwell is "Slightly faster turret rotarion and speed" you should check their stats, abilities and tech cost again.


The whole idea you NEED a buff this big to be on par should tell you how God awful the Cromwell MG's are.

You are proving my point for me.

Now post the PIV mg DPS with pintle, Cromwell is bottom of the pile by a long shot despite being a similar price to the Sherman.The stats and abilities are straight up inferior to the Sherman which has radionet and crew repair and smoke. Cromwell only has smoke stock as a unit.

>Muh tech costs

Try surviving against current axis meta without 5 man or AEC sweetie. I've seen you and Dane bringing up British tech before if you cutout sidegrades but you don't seem to realize how hard it is to survive without AEC tech against actual good players.

17 Jul 2018, 05:12 AM
#30
avatar of wandererraven

Posts: 337

It mean Try to use Tommy (With Double Bren)
Combine Arms with Cromwell
----
And Forget Cromwell
I ask About Comet Should AI Performance Worse Than Panther with Turret MG ?
17 Jul 2018, 05:56 AM
#31
avatar of Mcq_knight

Posts: 42

jump backJump back to quoted post16 Jul 2018, 22:46 PMKatitof

Tanks SHOULD be a MAJOR threat to infantry with no AT support.
You'd rather RNG insta wipes then consistent damage?

And I'm not talking about 40 DPS far either here.

20 far, 40 close with all MGs would do the trick, only issue that would need to be resolved is the scaling, cutting off some reload time into MG accuracy would be needed to counter act infantry rec acc vet.



I do like my main gun aoe yes. An mg skewed damage profile would make the tank more of a passive damage output source from a more dynamic one.

Just an example, as a rifle squad would close on a p4 for a eng crit, the movement over and through terrain would increase the changes of squad stacking and subsequent “RNG wipes”. I would argue you live by the sword, die by it. Use cover to close safely or roll the dice on the open charge. I feel a mg damage profile would reduce the decision to a simple health check. Sure the cannon might do a bit but the risk is severely diminished.
17 Jul 2018, 08:29 AM
#32
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 8287 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post17 Jul 2018, 03:28 AMroll0

The whole idea you NEED a buff this big to be on par should tell you how God awful the Cromwell MG's are.

You are proving my point for me.

As I explained the anomaly here is the T-34 that has nearly so much DPS from the 2 mgs that other tanks get from 3 than they also have to pay MU to upgrade.

So no it does prove you point, Cromwell hull/coaxial mg are in line with most of other tanks. If a change is need that should include the majority of Tanks (which should actually happen since the curves of these weapon seem to be all over the place).

jump backJump back to quoted post17 Jul 2018, 03:28 AMroll0

Now post the PIV mg DPS with pintle, Cromwell is bottom of the pile by a long shot despite being a similar price to the Sherman.The stats and abilities are straight up inferior to the Sherman which has radionet and crew repair and smoke. Cromwell only has smoke stock as a unit.

>Muh tech costs

The Pintle cost MU and makes those vehicle more expensive than Cromwell in both fuel and MU. If the 2 mg should have about the same DPS as the 3 available to other tank then pintle mg should come free.

You also forgetting that Cromwell gets an officer for less MU increasing accuracy and Sight.

jump backJump back to quoted post17 Jul 2018, 03:28 AMroll0

Try surviving against current axis meta without 5 man or AEC sweetie. I've seen you and Dane bringing up British tech before if you cutout sidegrades but you don't seem to realize how hard it is to survive without AEC tech against actual good players.

Making UKF unit OP/abilities OP to cover the shortcomings of the faction is actually very bad design and should stop. The faction needs an overhaul not some OP unit to carry it.

My point is simple, an argument that Cromwell needs its mg buffed to T-34 level because it is simply more expensive does not hold water, if that was the case the more expensive tanks would had to have even better mgs.

Doing a comparison taking into account only the strongest point of a unit (T-34 mgs in this case) is simply misleading (especially since Cromwell is superior in most stats).
17 Jul 2018, 12:55 PM
#33
avatar of roll0

Posts: 64

Permanently Banned
jump backJump back to quoted post17 Jul 2018, 08:29 AMVipper

As I explained the anomaly here is the T-34 that has nearly so much DPS from the 2 mgs that other tanks get from 3 than they also have to pay MU to upgrade.

So no it does prove you point, Cromwell hull/coaxial mg are in line with most of other tanks. If a change is need that should include the majority of Tanks (which should actually happen since the curves of these weapon seem to be all over the place).


The Pintle cost MU and makes those vehicle more expensive than Cromwell in both fuel and MU. If the 2 mg should have about the same DPS as the 3 available to other tank then pintle mg should come free.

You also forgetting that Cromwell gets an officer for less MU increasing accuracy and Sight.


Making UKF unit OP/abilities OP to cover the shortcomings of the faction is actually very bad design and should stop. The faction needs an overhaul not some OP unit to carry it.

My point is simple, an argument that Cromwell needs its mg buffed to T-34 level because it is simply more expensive does not hold water, if that was the case the more expensive tanks would had to have even better mgs.

Doing a comparison taking into account only the strongest point of a unit (T-34 mgs in this case) is simply misleading (especially since Cromwell is superior in most stats).


It does prove my point, Cromwell is still at the bottom of the pile in AI despite costing about same as Sherman.

Nothing in that all of text seems to address or even attempt to justify why Cromwell AI is worse than any other tank despite costing more. Nerfed commander upgrade doesn't add the DPS of MG42 or 50.cal and HE shells.

Now tell me if T-34/76 is so OP and cheap for the cost then why do we hardly see them built compared to KV or 85's?

You're literally the only person I've ever seen argue they are OP, the fact is they were useless before the MG buff.

Making Cromwell and comet worth their cost is not producing "crutches" any more than the panther MG buff or t-34 mg buff turned it into a "crutch" by your theory crafting.
17 Jul 2018, 16:49 PM
#34
avatar of Mongal

Posts: 102

I just did a test in cheatmod. 2 times per tank against cons in neutral cover. The tanks were set to AT.

T34/76

24 secs
31 secs

P4 no mg upgrade

48 secs
52 secs

P4 with mg upgrade

26 secs
29 secs

Cromwell

1 min 12 secs
1 min 2 secs
17 Jul 2018, 17:46 PM
#35
avatar of ShadowLinkX37
Director of Moderation Badge

Posts: 3605 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post17 Jul 2018, 16:49 PMMongal
I just did a test in cheatmod. 2 times per tank against cons in neutral cover. The tanks were set to AT.

T34/76

24 secs
31 secs

P4 no mg upgrade

48 secs
52 secs

P4 with mg upgrade

26 secs
29 secs

Cromwell

1 min 12 secs
1 min 2 secs


I don't doubt this test, but just saying 2 tests isn't enough to go to the conclusion of "NEEDZ BUFF NAOW". Also why mention "tanks set to AT" when the only tank which can change its shell is the sherman, which is missing from here?
17 Jul 2018, 17:53 PM
#36
avatar of Leo251

Posts: 197

jump backJump back to quoted post17 Jul 2018, 16:49 PMMongal
I just did a test in cheatmod. 2 times per tank against cons in neutral cover. The tanks were set to AT.

T34/76

24 secs
31 secs

P4 no mg upgrade

48 secs
52 secs

P4 with mg upgrade

26 secs
29 secs

Cromwell

1 min 12 secs
1 min 2 secs

Mmmm. According to this, you have to invest 50 MU on a MG for your P4 to have the same DPS of a T34/76, (which is already 35 FU cheaper than the P4)... This does not sounds very balanced at all by Relic.
17 Jul 2018, 17:56 PM
#37
avatar of Leo251

Posts: 197


Also why mention "tanks set to AT" when the only tank which can change its shell is the sherman, which is missing from here?

I think he was referring to Prioritize Vehicle.
17 Jul 2018, 18:13 PM
#38
avatar of ShadowLinkX37
Director of Moderation Badge

Posts: 3605 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post17 Jul 2018, 17:56 PMLeo251

I think he was referring to Prioritize Vehicle.


Ah, that would make sense on what he said, but why he did it I do not know.... He was shooting conscripts not armor.
17 Jul 2018, 18:15 PM
#39
avatar of roll0

Posts: 64

Permanently Banned
jump backJump back to quoted post17 Jul 2018, 17:53 PMLeo251

Mmmm. According to this, you have to invest 50 MU on a MG for your P4 to have the same DPS of a T34/76, (which is already 35 FU cheaper than the P4)... This does not sounds very balanced at all by Relic.


His test still finds the PIV and t-34 crushing the Cromwell in mg ai, BUT what it doesn't show is how panzer 4 mg42 and sherman 50.cal ai is much better in practice than on paper. Yes you might have a muni cost but having a 360 degree mg firing every time you flank an at gun or sniper can be an engagement decider.


The t-34 wins on paper but you're not going to be firing both guns 100% of the time, half your mg DPS is usually cut off unless you've got a perfect forward facing engagement for the hull gun to get to work. HE Sherman + 50. And p4 +mg42 suffer less in this regard as their DPS is "turret" heavy.

This is why the Cromwell is even more mediocre in practice for a flanking tank and the T-34/76 doesn't seem as good in-game despite having the best crew guns.
17 Jul 2018, 20:37 PM
#40
avatar of IncendiaryRounds:)

Posts: 1435

Dark's suggestion is the best by a long shot: tighten the AoE and increase accuracy to increase consistency which also lower wipe potential. The Ost p4 and crom have terrible aoe accuracy against infantry. Its quite frustrating to use them against infantry when you have a limited window before at guns or other at arrive at the scene.
1 user is browsing this thread: 1 guest
UTT2 Main Event

Ladders Top 10

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

Replay highlight

VS
  • Ostheer flag T.R. 6 squads, 4 maxim 2 engies
  • U.S. Forces flag °NOSMarkov.-
uploaded by KahootKing

Board Info

152 users are online: 5 members and 147 guests
Musti, Hannibal, Von_Smedman, JibberJabberJobber, Vodka Comapny
59 posts in the last 24h
915 posts in the last week
4581 posts in the last month
Registered members: 22776
Welcome our newest member, 5lydiac461eN7
Most online: 1221 users on 25 Feb 2020, 12:03 PM