Quite happy with a range increase, defiantly the units biggest flaw. Having the unit fire more shells would be nice but if not, it should be more accurate and cost less.
The pop cost however is way to high for a unit with categorically woeful performance. Either a large drop in pop cost or significant performance buff - right now its just criminal. |
Doing something about the Sexton and Valentine performance and synergy will go a long way towards fixing this commander and helping out the Brits against static defenses and arty spam fests.
Sexton:
A think a range increase (to Priest level) and a pop and cost reduction will go a long way towards making it more attractive. The pop cost is especially crippling for such a poor performing unit. Replace the creeping barrage with something useful like wide area smoke or short air burst round barrage.
Valentine:
Like it was suggested, the unit either needs more lethality or to start with victor target at vet 0. Both the Sexton and the Valentine can't reach their full potential working together because the Valentine almost never reaches vet1. I actually have no idea how well victor target works as I never had the chance to use, guess some test rounds are in order. A reduction in CP will help a great deal aswell.
Concentrated barrage:
Works nicely if you have anvil for the air burst rounds but it utter woeful otherwise. Ideally the cost should scale with tech level as using at tech 1 is a complete waste. Making it a bit cheaper will help a lot though.
Flares:
Was not very useful when it actually worked, the fact that it doens't work just adds insult to injury. A truly useful ability would be targeted recon like OKW's flares (though in my opinion that ability is batshit OP) or recon plane.
Arty Overwatch:
A worthless munition sink if ever there was one. It costs a boat load, is slow to respond to anything, not very accurate when it does fire, not a lot of damage and it locks out your ability to use the 25pdrs for other abilities for a while. So much would have to be done to make this ability even remotely useful. Probably have more success with replacing it with some else entirely.
|
Thread: Bofors21 May 2018, 08:50 AM
Why was the Bofors changed to do absolutely no damage to planes? Is it a bug or is there some actual reasoning behind it?
Had several cases this weekend where the bofors would waste its time shooting at reacon planes but never once knocked one out of the sky. |
I don't normally comment about the state of units from factions I don't normally play, but I make an exception for the OKW bellowing cow. As a primary Brit player, playing mainly team games, I absolutely loathe this unit.
It really is a two click support weapon delete machine and on maps with bridges and tighter lanes, its an absolute nightmare.
But personal bias aside, lets put everything into context.
As Armadillo stated: Axis rocket arty is controlled and predictable, all allied arty is an RNG machine.
A very import distinction to add to this, is that Axis rocket arty is burst or alpha strike, unleashing all its firepower within a few seconds. All allied arty on the other hand is sustained fire, meaning the arty piece fires over few tens of seconds.
Burst nature of axis, means the arty piece can blow its load and quickly retreat, even able start moving before the arty is even revealed to the allied player. This gives no chance for counter arty action, leaving tank diving as the only possible counter option for allies. Allies don't have this luxury and their arty pieces have to sit in place with there arse in the breeze while they fire, providing axis the chance to counter fire (they even have it as an ability) or call in an offmap.
Case in point, the landmatress has to move up pretty close and has the longest firing duration, providing ample opportunity for Stuka or off map to end it all.
Burst fire also means that anything caught in the target zone is buggered and for support weapons with pack-up time and no retreat, pretty much a wipe. Sustained fire and RNG spread at least gives the opposing player a chance to react and do something. You may get wiped, you may not, but its something.
This all culminates in axis having rocket arty that is low risk and high reward (based on skill), while allies tend to be more higher risk, with uncertain reward.
Now to stuka ze fuss specifically, lets talk about the more egregious aspects of the unit as, in my opinion, it typifies the worst qualities of the game.
- Timing: Arguably the most powerful rocket arty unit but can be first to hit field - why should this be the case? A landmatress might be relatively cheap but at 8cp, its gonna be a while before it hits the field and its not nearly as impactful.
- High damage: Each rocket does a huge amount damage (200 per rocket), easily able to wipe squads and is the only rocket arty capable of severely damaging tanks.
- Choose the destruction: It always fires in a line and the player can choose the line of attack. This means you can always hit at least two (stationary) units with your strike, while with other arty's RNG spread you might not hit anything at all. The ability to select where it hits makes a huge difference, especially against defensive lines or retreat paths.
- Not that expensive: With such a powerful arty piece, one would think it would come with a premium price tag, yet its only slightly more expensive compared to other arty pieces.
- Low risk: Its range is not bad, can fire from relative safety, while not having to worry about FOG spread and burst fire means it can quickly retreat.
Talk about having your cake and eating it. A unit can be good a somethings, but it has to have some downsides too. Sure doesn't seem to be the case with this unit.
The effectiveness of the unit is just compounded with other abilities and units, like the easily spammed offmap flares and IR half track.
Relic talk how there should not be auto wipe machines / abilities so how is it that this incarnation of the Stuka ze fuss still exists?
|
Actually Centaur is probably the only OP tank the Brits have in this patch.
The new Centaur sure is the gem of T3, pretty much required at all times.
The Croc I do get now and then as it does a decent job at protecting your AT gun and VP's from pesky blobs over running your position. Just like the AVRE it is NOT a spearhead unit, rather a inf mop up unit that comes in from behind.
I can't rightly comment on whether its overpriced as I don't play smaller game modes.
You can only risk getting it when you have AT department fully covered, making it more a covering all bases unit, than a game changer.
The Comet is an overpriced tin can, basking in the light of its former glory days and best avoided in team games.
I'm finding the Churchill VII a more reliable option for late game as it serves the distinct role of leading the charge, tanking shots, and believe it or not, effective flanking. |
"Just move out of the area"
/sarcasm
"Just hold on to your tin helmet."
/sarcasm |
Skill planes are cancer and its pretty much a requirement in team games to have AA units on standby to help counter them.
While we are talking about large area denile, zero input, auto targeting abilities, are we gonna consider artillery based ones as well?
Sector arty, scavenge arty (forget its actual name), zeroing arty, close the pocket, covering arty, etc are all pretty much I win the engagement buttons.
Horrible as they are, skill planes can at least be shot down, but these abilities require the player to get the hell out of dodge, forcing you to loose valuable ground. |
No I am saying that one can:
either form a theory and then check its validity with appropriate test
or one can perform test and then see if he can form a theory based on the results.
Both are solid scientific approaches.
In the end of the day ,if you do not like the test contacted, run your own set of the test with the parameters you like so then other can come and criticize your work.
Ah I see and yes I agree completely. |
Actually no one can simply contact a test and then see how one can use those results.
Especially since OP draw no conclusion from his tests.
Are you suggesting that unit tests are worthless?
All manner of tests are useful to some degree or another, with the accuracy and value of results being dependent on conditions defined.
Tests in a vacuum obviously don't reflect the complex interactions of an actual game but various bits of information will aid your tactical decision making. You might also discover things you never knew as well.
If you referring to testing for sake of unit balance, that's another story and far more complex.
OP did go to the effort to run a whole stack of tests and then post it to the balance forum and it would be nice to know why he went to all that effort. Matter of interest, generate balance discuss, got bored?
In science the why is just as important as the how, as it difficult to come to the right conclusion without asking the right questions.
|
I do applaud and encourage people to do tests however, one needs to be clear about the purpose of the tests in order to define the test conditions.
Is it matter of interest tests or are you investigating cost effectiveness in comparison to other factions? Why are you testing certain units match ups and not others?
I have two major criticisms though;
You don't give enough information about each test such as: are the units being microed, did they use abilities, what variation was there between tests, etc.
Second, you don't appear to be taking range into consideration. Various unit have different effective ranges and perform poorly at other ranges, eg what would happen if you performed volks vs IS test at medium and close ranges?
Also how on earth can a firefly beat a KT in a one on one slug match or Cromwell reliably beat an OKW P4?! |